Loading...
2003 01-16Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 16, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, January 16, 2003 by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, and Michael Rohm. Members Absent: Leslie Mathes. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nick Wollen, Jessica Johnson and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X David Zaremba X Jerry Centers O Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for January 16th . We'll start with roll call of the Commissioners. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of December 19, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: B. Approve minutes of January 2, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AUP 02-010 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for five or fewer children out of home in an R-8 zone for Angela Deane by Angela Deane – 770 Abernathy Way: Borup: The first item is the Consent Agenda a motion to approve that would approve all three, Items A, B, and C. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I have a comment on Item B, the minutes of January 2, 2003. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 2 of 132 Zaremba: On the summary page, the first two pages, on the second page of that regarding the ninth item, the Public Hearing, PP 02-025, what we recommended approval of was, actually, 119 building lots and 12 other lots. That was a change from 117 to 119 and from 15 to 12. I'm looking at the summary sheet that -- the Item Number 9. Borup: Which page are you on? Zaremba: This is January 2nd . Borup: No. I -- Zaremba: The summary page on top. Borup: Oh there. Zaremba: That says what we approved and forwarded in this -- Borup: Right. Zaremba: On the second page of that, Item 9, what we approved were 119 building lots and 12 other lots. Borup: Yes. That's what I was looking at was the motion -- or the motion said 119 and 12 and that was the original application number, I think. Zaremba: The original was 117 and 15. It was changed to 119 and 12. Borup: Yes okay so noted. Zaremba: Those are my only comments one either of these -- any one of these items. Borup: Okay. Centers: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as amended, Items A, B, and C. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 4. Tabled Public Hearing from January 2, 2003: PP 02-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots and 1 other lot on 12.081 acres Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 3 of 132 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. Next item is -- actually, four, five, and six are all tabled from the -- or not tabled. I'm sorry. Let me try again. Item Number 4 is a Tabled Public Hearing from January 2nd , PP 02-028, a request for Preliminary Plat approval of 7 building lots in an I- L zone for Gemtone Center Subdivision. I'd like to open this Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. On the PowerPoint overhead, you can see the area of the subdivision that we will be discussing tonight. It's the area that's in bold. This is an aerial view of the site. I'll just spend just a few moments on this. I wasn't here at the last meeting, so I don't know your background on this from the time it was tabled before, but just to give you a little overview. Borup: We did not have a presentation on it. McKinnon: I'll go ahead and give you a detailed review, then. The reason why this project was continued at the last Public Hearing was that there was some discussion concerning the existing Commercial Avenue, which is a private street. You can see that it's dirt at this time. It now has been improved to an asphalt surface. As you might remember a few months back, almost a year ago, we had some discussions about Elixir Subdivision and whether or not Commercial Avenue should be a public road or a private road. Well, they have improved it all the way up to this point. It does not meet ACHD's requirements, and it's still a private road at this time. When this subdivision was originally approved at Preliminary Plat, the last time this was approved as Gemtone No. 4, the subdivision essentially, encompassed the area that I'm highlighting right now. It is, essentially, bordered on Pine Street with the other local streets on the sides ending on the western boundary. At that time this lot -- this would be Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 6 -- those lots were not included with the original approval of this that took place a number of years ago as noted in the staff report. If I can move forward, this will give you a better view. As noted in the overhead, there is Commercial Avenue that runs right along this northern boundary of these lots right here. This application before -- the reason why it was continued is because Commercial on the original application did not connect. You can see that they offset. Commercial is public on this site and did not connect with Commercial over here. There was an offset of about 50 feet between the two streets. In addition to that, the requested Preliminary Plat approval that was before you included a driveway that went from Pine Street all the way down this long, narrow flag lot, to Lot Number 2 down here, rather than taking access off of Commercial Court. You should have all received a few items today. Let me go through what those are. You should have received a staff report from ACHD. They gave us the final report today. You probably haven't had a chance to review that, but I will go ahead and highlight a couple things after I'm done telling you the information that you received today. You should have received a copy of Joe Silva's updated memo. There was, really, only one change on that and I will highlight that as well. It addition to that, you Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 4 of 132 should have all received an eight and a half by 11 tonight showing the changes that were proposed to the Site Plan. I'm just going to go ahead and go in reverse order from that. You have the Site Plan. If you can take a look at that down at the area that, I have got highlighted on the PowerPoint that would be the area of Commercial Street. They have added Commercial Street to run from the existing Commercial now to the existing private Commercial Street. ACHD does not want the two roads to connect at this time, because Commercial on the east side is not a public road, it's just a private road, and so they would ask that they would connect with bollards and staff is in support of that, as you have read in the staff report. We'd like to see those two connected. In addition to that, there was a requirement to complete Machine Avenue. If you're not familiar with ACHD's policy of half plus 12, what that essentially, means is that the developer that developed this parcel that's adjacent to Machine, instead of developing the entire roadway on their parcel, they improved the roadway to have two lanes of traffic, which is, essentially, half of the road, plus 12 feet. The other 12 feet would be for the additional lane of traffic. Machine Avenue does not have a sidewalk currently on the eastern side of the property to where it dead-ends. One of the requirements of ACHD now would be that Machine Avenue is completed to its full width and the curb, gutter, and sidewalk is installed on the east side of Machine Avenue. The new Site Plan shows how that would take place. Now, if I can get you to grab Joe Silva's memo. Turn to the second page. This is the only change from the last time, is that Joe has now asked for an approval turn around on the north end of North Machine Avenue. It's not shown on the Site Plan that was given to you tonight. Becky didn't have a chance -- or the applicant did not have a chance to make these changes, because this came over from Joe just this afternoon. The turn around would be at this location at the end of the northern terminus of Machine Avenue. That would be to allow emergency vehicles to make that -- that escape from the dead-end road. We can go to Ada County Highway District's approvals at this time. I wish you had the opportunity to read this, but it goes through site-specific items. If you could turn to Page 6, I will just go through a couple of the site-specific items that need to be brought to your attention. It's going to be Page 6, Item Number C-1. If you can get to the very end of that paragraph, it says if the city does not require the extension of Commercial Street, then, the applicant shall be required to complete the intersection and improvements of Machine Avenue. City staff does support that the two streets connect. It doesn't make sense for people to not have access from the existing public road in the future down Commercial Street to get to Eagle Road. It doesn't make sense for them to have to go on two other arterials back out to Franklin to get to Eagle and so we would like to see those two connected. We would like tonight that you require that the two roads do -- that the two roads do connect. If I could get you to look now down to Item Number 3. Again, the final sentence of this section of the report says that they need to provide a written approval to the Meridian Fire Department that indicates a turn around is not required at the northern terminus of Machine Avenue. The memo that we just read from Joe says that there is a requirement for that so there will be a requirement for that. It won't be able to comply with that unless they show that they can put that turn around at the end of Machine Avenue. I have taken a second to talk with the developer just this evening and it looks like it would be possible for them to put a turn around on that property, so that does not appear to be a major concern. They will be required to place the no parking Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 5 of 132 signs on Machine Avenue. I have done several site visits out to the area and currently there are cars parked up and down both sides of Machine Avenue, both on the east side and the west side in order accommodate parking for one of the larger commercial uses on the south side of the Commercial Street at the end of Machine. Borup: David, while you're on that, can -- can you explain the purpose of that stub street, Machine Avenue? I mean is it anticipated to access that property to the north or -- it looks like this applicant has no need for Machine Avenue to be extended at all for their -- is that correct? McKinnon: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Machine Avenue is not being required to be extended tonight for this application. Borup: Well, but they are requiring a turn around. McKinnon: They are requiring that they complete the half plus 12 and that's what ACHD's policy is. There is nothing on the -- right now it's just edge of pavement. There is no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Borup: Right. That was my question. That stub street is designed to serve future property. Is that what's still anticipated here? McKinnon: That is what's anticipated. The reason that the applicant is being required to complete the western -- the eastern portion of Machine Avenue, is because that's the portion of the property that -- the portion of the street that's on their property. In the future we could not require say this parcel right here to complete improvements on someone else's property. Borup: Right. I understand that so this is the only -- is that landlocked or is this a secondary access or we don't know. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that property is not landlocked. In addition to providing access to this lot, it also would provide access in the future as it connects to Pine Street. Pine Street is where Eagle Road does have the stoplight and so people could access Pine Street by going up north to Pine. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: A future connection there but they are not required to extend this road any further. Borup: No. I understood that. Zaremba: Well, is the assumption that at some time Machine will connect to Pine and Commercial? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 6 of 132 McKinnon: I went to the tech review at ACHD last week for this -- and Becky's here tonight. She was at the tech review as well. There was a lot of discussion about whether or not that ever will connect and it, essentially, hinges on whether or not the city would like it to connect. ACHD, in my opinion, was either -- it was sixes either way for them, whether it continued up or if it -- Zaremba: It certainly would help people that intend, eventually, to go from Commercial and go north on Eagle they would probably go to Pine to the signal. McKinnon: Right. Zaremba: The end result of that would be that this applicant would need to do the half plus 12 on their side all the way up. McKinnon: The problem with them having to do the half plus 12 on their side is that they would offset the road right at that point that we are right at now all the way back up to Pine and ACHD felt that at this time there wasn't enough push for that. Brad, Steve and I -- all three of us got together to determine what -- you know, whether -- we couldn't figure out whether or not ACHD was going to want to require them to dedicate that amount of right of way that would be allowed to complete a half plus 12 all the way up to Pine Street. In talking with ACHD, they don't believe that it should connect and they are not requiring that additional dedication. Borup: I'm assuming Lot 1, Block 6, is not intended as a building lot? McKinnon: It, actually, is intended as a building lot. In ACHD's report -- I was going to go on just one more site specific comment on that and that's Item Number 4, which is just the next one I was going to go to. ACHD in their staff report talked about how Lot 1 should actually not take access off of Pine Street, but, rather, should take access off of Machine Avenue. The reason for that is because Pine is a collector -- commercial collector and they'd like to limit the number of access points on Pine Street. They felt that in order to limit the access off of Pine Street, they could take access to this building lot by accessing it here, providing a driveway from the terminus of Machine and running it up to this lot and not allowing access to Pine from that lot. That's one of the reasons I wanted to bring it up to you. It doesn't -- from staff's point of view, it makes more sense to front the building onto Pine Street and provide access onto Pine Street. It is not in violation of ACHD's policy, but it is something that ACHD would like to limit. That would be something that I would ask for you to make a motion on tonight as to where you believe they should be taking access to that lot. I was just looking at -- yes. It's still lot - - the revised Site Plan shows this lot down at the bottom now as Lot 1, Block 7, and so the number -- the numbering system that we have used is going to be a little bit off, but throughout the staff report the lot down here is Lot Number 2 of Block 6. Lot 1, Block 6, is still the same number so as far as where you would like to see access tonight would be something that I think the applicant would like to hear from you and something that we can hang our hats on, essentially. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 7 of 132 Borup: Any idea the explanation for that configuration, the curve and -- does the applicant own the unplatted area, too? McKinnon: It was an old railroad spur. It actually came up through there to serve -- Borup: Are those separate parcels under a different ownership? Same ownership? McKinnon: A long time ago they were under different ownership, if I remember correctly. It was all part of the entire rectangular shaped piece of property that was part of the Elixir Group. It wasn't Elixir? It was Western Chemical? Which one was it? Borup: Well, it just looks like a poor way to do a lot. Centers: How wide is this, Dave? McKinnon: It's 50 feet. Centers: Fifty? McKinnon: Fifty. Borup: It is -- the lot is -- well, I don't know if it's larger than it looks. It's not going to take a very large building up there in that triangle section at the top. Okay. Well, I mean -- McKinnon: It's 1.66, but it's got that long flag that runs up at 50 feet for approximately -- Borup: That's going to be up to -- that's going to be up to them to decide what they could put on there if it complies -- you know, if you comply with the setbacks from Pine Street and everything else. McKinnon: Right. Borup: And leave room for right of -- so they still -- 50 feet is not buildable either, is it? McKinnon: It's going to be really hard to build a skinny building on that. Borup: Well, 25 feet of that needs to go to the -- for future Machine Avenue, doesn't it? McKinnon: A portion of that would be part of Machine Avenue's completion. That's correct. Zaremba: Then a landscape setback and the -- McKinnon: Yes it would be really skinny. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 8 of 132 Zaremba: So they have a building that's two feet wide. McKinnon: Right. Borup: Down on the bottom. McKinnon: If I could just continue on to a couple more things, before we get into discussion, and I know Becky is going to have a few things that she's going to want to add. With the original Site Plan that was submitted, there was no Landscaping Plan that was submitted for this parcel, which is now Lot 1, Block 7. There is a requirement, as you will note in the staff report, for a new Landscape Plan to be submitted that includes a landscape buffer for the future pathway adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad. In addition to that, there was no landscaping that was shown for -- for obvious reasons, in this location where Commercial would come across and you would need a Landscape Plan for that as well for the public street frontage -- street buffer Landscape Plan. We would need to know how the applicant intends on landscaping or treating this area in the future, this 50-foot wide area, as you have noted that it's really not buildable at this time. There should be some treatment to that area in order to either, one, beautify it or to keep it from becoming a nuisance, keep it from becoming a 50-foot wide -- or a 25-foot wide, jogging up to a 50-foot wide weed patch. There needs to be some sort of treatment that's taken on that area. Unless, of course, you decide to go with ACHD's recommendation to require a driveway starting at the end of Machine and running the access to this lot from Machine Avenue. Those are -- that really covers the information that's addressed in the staff report as well. We do support the new revised connections to the Commercial Street and there are a number of items that I would like for you to strike from the staff report tonight, items that they have met on the revised Site Plan -- the revised Preliminary Plat. If I could have you turn to Page 4 of the comments, it would be the comments dated December 31st on Page 4. If you would strike Item Number 3, that was the -- that was the requirement for an additional plat note. The plat note has been included on the new revised plat. Item Number 7, the applicant has eliminated the 25-foot wide cross-access easement. That item can be stricken from the staff report. Item Number 8, the applicant would be required to extend the existing East Commercial Street. The applicant has done that as well so all three of those Items Number, 3, 7, and 8, should be stricken from the staff report. With that, I'd ask if you have any additional questions of staff. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I have a question probably directed to Bruce. On the response from the Water Department, which they signed November 25, 2002, is the statement that what is now being called Block 7, Lot 1, was part of the Elixir project, which we have talked about, and was never accepted by the Meridian Water Department. What does that mean to us? Or what does it mean to the applicant? Just in general what does it mean? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 9 of 132 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, the parcel that they are referring to, to my knowledge, never was part of the Elixir project. It's always been in the ownership of Gemtone so I think their comment is in error. Zaremba: Okay. Just having nothing to do with this applicant, but if a parcel was not accepted, what does that mean? Freckleton: Well, I think what he's -- I think his word should have been accepted, not excepted. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: There was a water main installed in Commercial Street coming in off Eagle Road down into this location. I'm not sure where he's going with that, but I don't think the final inspections were ever approved and the lines never were accepted by the City of Meridian for ownership and maintenance. Zaremba: But if this project went through, that inspection would happen and -- Freckleton: Yes. They would be two totally separate projects, because this would have to get its services from extensions of services off of Commercial through this area, not off of Elixir. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borup: So you wouldn't be looping the water line? Freckleton: Well, we would be looking to make the connection at Machine with the lines that were installed as part of Elixir, yes. Borup: That's what I thought. Freckleton: So we would just have to work that out, but it is two separate projects. Borup: Any other questions? Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Dave, you had been commenting that you wanted Commercial Street connected and maybe I lost you and, then, you said strike Number 8 on Page 4. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the reason I asked you to strike Number 8 is because the applicant has submitted a plat that does connect to the two. Centers: But in your first comments when you first started you were talking about that being a requirement, but they have done it, then? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 10 of 132 McKinnon: They have done it. Centers: Okay. Great. Thank you. Borup: And maybe just clarification on that same thing, then. ACHD wanted the bollards, staff does not is that correct? I'm not sure why they wanted the bollards. McKinnon: The reason -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason for the bollards is because Commercial Avenue is a private street. Borup: Right. McKinnon: And we cannot force the applicant to allow us to have access to their private street. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: The reason -- we have to have -- Borup: Well, does their street go right up to their property line? McKinnon: The street, actually, if I have -- in discussions with ACHD and site, the street actually extends beyond their property line and goes into part of Gemtone project. However, the street is a private street, it's maintained by the owner of that. If the city were to require them to open that up, the city would also have to make that a public road. We cannot require them to make that a public road at this time, because the road does not meet ACHD's standards. Borup: Oh. Right. I understood that but if that road already extends past their property line, Gemtone goes ahead and just connects to it, if the other property doesn't want access, it should be up to them to put a barricade up, shouldn't it? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is a barricade that's up right now. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: So they have placed a barricade there. The connection that Gemtone would be making would be separate to that but currently, the -- where Commercial Court comes and dead-ends is about where my laser pointer is at on the map. There is actually a chain link fence that's located right at the dead end portion of that road so the bollards would keep vehicles from traveling across someone else's private property. Staff does not disagree with the bollards being placed there at this time. However, in the future, when Elixir requests that their property be re-subdivided or -- subdivided and other portions of it annexed -- I'm not sure if it would involve annex -- when they come Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 11 of 132 back in to subdivide, like they did previously with the Elixir Subdivision, we can require them at that time to make that road public. Borup: If I remember right, I think we already did that once. McKinnon: We did do that once. However, the applicant for Elixir Industries has said I'm not going to do it, I'm not going to record my plat, so we have no way of requiring him to do his public road now. Borup: And the project that that was made a requirement on didn't go through. McKinnon: It didn't go through and so we have no way of forcing him to allow us access to that private road at this time. Borup: Okay. They moved drown the street is what they did. Okay any other questions from staff? Is the applicant ready for a presentation? Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt and I'm representing the applicant in this matter 1100 East Valli-Hi, Eagle. Dave's pretty much given you, you know, some of the history on this project. This is a Preliminary Plat. We had obtained Preliminary Plat approval -- or not I, but another planner years and years ago multiple Time Extensions were granted by the Council, a Variance and, then, the applicants couldn't decide exactly what they wanted to do. They allowed the Preliminary Plat to expire. Basically, what this is, is a new Preliminary Plat going through the second time. As Dave indicated, that's a -- the curvature there is an old railroad spur that Gemtone purchased from -- I think it was Union Pacific Railroad. It was never built and so they added it to this project. We went through staff's comments, ACHD's comments, we adjusted our Preliminary Plat to reflect the extension of Commercial Street along the dog leg and just, for your information, the reason that the block changes and the lot numbers change is because we separate that with a right of way. Once that right of way separates that, we have to change block and lot numbers. You were correct, Commissioner Borup, this body and the City Council required Elixir to make their Commercial Street public, they threw a fit and -- because they had built it, I believe, in advance and it was not constructed as to ACHD standards, nor did they put sidewalk on either side. Borup: I believe they were told before they built it. Bowcutt: You're probably right. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, and Mrs. Bowcutt, the City Council at first required it to be a public road and, then, there was an appeal to that. Mr. Clayton, representing Elixir Industries, convinced the Council to allow to that remain private after the first time they went public, so they did flip-flop on that. The final decision of Council was that that road could remain private as part of the Elixir -- Borup: It wasn't built to ACHD specs? They built it private? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 12 of 132 Bowcutt: Correct. McKinnon: Yes. Bowcutt: Anyway, at that time one of their arguments before the City Council to rescind the requirement to make it public was that there was probably never going to be a chance of a connection. They also got a letter out of ACHD that said they didn't care whether it was public or private. Well, now, we come through and ACHD is saying we need this connection, but, oh, shoot, it's private over there. I have talked to the applicant and Mr. Wright has indicated he is not opposed to extending Commercial and connecting that to the private section, so that in the future, if it ever becomes public, you will have that connection out there. The dogleg, when you look at that, it's approximately 72,491 square feet. If you look at -- if we come up say approximately 500 feet, we have got about 25,000 square feet in this area, approximately. It is technically unbuildable. Probably the best bet would be to utilize that for a driveway, if we have -- we have 50 feet here, driveways are typically 20, 25 feet wide, and, then, have landscaping on both sides. This is approximately one third of these 72,491 square feet. You would -- you know, you could place a building in here, it would, obviously, have to be, you know, designed the right way. Borup: Excuse me, Becky. Does Gemtone own both parcels on both sides of that curve? Bowcutt: They only -- the only thing that they own -- Borup: Is Block 6 or Block 1? Bowcutt: -- is what you see there. Yes. Borup: Okay. Bowcutt: Yes. Yes, so the other option is if one could not fit a building on Lot 1, Block 6, at some point in time it could be combined with a parcel to the east or to the west. Someone could do -- when they came in to do a -- you know, to do a plat of -- to the east or the west, that could be included so there are options there. I always feel it's the responsibility of the developer to make sure that they are buildable. If they can't fit something on it, that's their problem, that's not the city's. Borup: Right. Bowcutt: It is unusual and, like I said, the burden is on the developer. We have adjusted the right of way -- excuse me. Zaremba: Since we are on that spot, do you have an opinion about whether a building would preferably face Pine or have this long driveway down to Commercial? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 13 of 132 Bowcutt: You know, I guess it could go either way. It would be more cost effective if it fronted Pine, because driveways are, obviously, expensive. As Dave indicated, you know, you have got to find something to do with those 50 feet. You know, maybe your user is someone who has a need for some storage, you know, like say a plumbing company or a roofing company, you could possibly fence off that 50 feet and store certain types of materials along there. I mean there are all kinds, you know, uses that you could -- you could have, but I am in agreement with Dave, I wouldn't want it to be an eye sore. You know, if the Commission would feel more comfortable putting some condition on there, that it be treated in some fashion, you know, staff level review to make sure when that lot is developed that that 50 feet is treated appropriately with either landscaping or screening or whatever, we are not opposed to that. The turn around, that was kind of a surprise to me, because, typically, we go one lot deep and without a turn around, but according to Dave, because that's 200 feet in depth and it exceeds 100 feet, therefore, the Fire Department is asking for a turn around. We can fit a turn around in there. This is a 100 scale. As you can see, based on the area that my client owns and the existing 50-foot of North Machine Avenue, we can fit a turn around in there. It is feasible to comply with the fire department's requirements. The other right of ways, this particular project has more right of ways than anyone I have ever seen. We are going to have to improve West State, North Hickory, and East Pine, Machine Avenue, and Commercial, just to bring on these few commercial lots but the applicant is fully aware of that. I have faxed him over our revised Preliminary Plats. He has read through the conditions and I think staff and the client and myself are in agreement. We would ask the Commission to go ahead and recommend approval of this to Council. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: I do have one very small. We have addressed now speaking in this area. Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: I guess this is Machine Avenue. Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: You have talked about making a turn around here. Bowcutt: Yes. Zaremba: That ends up leaving maybe, what, 20 or so feet -- 30 or so feet of Machine Avenue. It still needs to be widened. Are you proposing to do that or -- Bowcutt: Yes. ACHD's -- Zaremba: To make it a finished road for that -- Bowcutt: ACHD said that we have to go ahead and widen it. Anytime we have thought of something that is approved with the half right of way or half plus 12, usually, the City Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 14 of 132 Code and ACHD policy manual requires that we finish that out. Yes, there is an existing 50-foot of right of way there, we would utilize that, and if it -- if we have to add a little bit, we have, obviously, got the area to finish that roadway off. Then, that turn around could be temporary, so that Machine could go straight north. To swing it onto our dogleg, I don't think would be appropriate. You would want it to go pretty much in alignment straight up and intersect with Pine. Zaremba: So let me ask -- that answered that part of the question. Let me ask both you and maybe staff chime in. Assuming that someday this probably would connect to Pine, it seems pretty logical to me. Would a restriction along this property line be in order, that at least the setback had to be enough, if they build on it, the setback has to be enough that a future right of way could be -- Bowcutt: For a flanking street you mean? Zaremba: Yes. Bowcutt: That it would have a flanking setback? I don't see a problem with that do you, Dave? McKinnon: That's very appropriate. Bowcutt: Yes. That would be appropriate. You're right because, you know, technically, the building could be built like it was just a side lot line and, then, you would have a roadway. Therefore, it would impact the building. Yes. Good idea. Zaremba: I don't know how many feet that is, if we need to specify it. Bowcutt: Typically, it's 20, isn't it? McKinnon: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. That's an acceptable thing to do. Borup: Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying setback -- but you're still planning for a future street right of way there, though. Zaremba: Setback from this property line, if they build a building right up to the property line, minus 10 feet of required setback. Borup: No. That's what I'm saying. I think you're talking about two different things here. Becky, are you anticipating a 25-foot right of way along your property line any way future right of way? Bowcutt: No, sir. No, sir because the 50-foot of Machine Avenue right of way would extend straight north. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 15 of 132 Borup: Right. Bowcutt: And it would be -- Zaremba: Probably only take up 10 or 12 feet off of this property. Bowcutt: So what -- Borup: Oh, the existing Machine is already 50-foot right of way? Bowcutt: That's right so if you -- Borup: Okay. I -- Bowcutt: If the RUT property is developed -- Borup: Right. Bowcutt: -- then, they would dedicate 50-foot along their boundary. Borup: And that would stay in alignment with existing Machine. Bowcutt: So, then, Commissioner Zaremba's question is wouldn't it be prudent for us to have a flanking street setback versus an interior side lot line setback. Borup: Yes. Bowcutt: To plan for that. Zaremba: I didn't know that terminology, but, yes, that's exactly what I was asking. Borup: I think we definitely should do that. Yes. Otherwise, 10 years from now when someone wants to put a street in, they say where -- why did the city approve that don't they plan? Bowcutt: Right and the building could be as close as what? Dave, what's the interior setback for I-L? McKinnon: I-L? Oh, geez. I think it's zero. Bowcutt: See. It could be zero. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Becky, Bruce and I are trying to figure out a way to wordsmith that to add that as a condition of the plat. That way it's a note on the plat, so that when they come to get Building Permits that, you know, the Building Department is notified that they have to meet those additional setbacks of 20 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 16 of 132 feet. Bruce and I are kind of in a quandary as to how we would -- if anybody has any ideas how we could either place that in the easement or if there needs to be a separate lot for that, how would we indicate that on the plat? That needs to be -- Bowcutt: Setback for that particular lot? McKinnon: Just as a note on the plat? Bowcutt: A note on the plat. McKinnon: Just a note on the plat? Bowcutt: A note on the plat. McKinnon: So there needs to be an additional note on the plat -- Bowcutt: Yes. McKinnon: -- that would say that for Lot 1 -- Zaremba: Block 6, Lot 1. Borup: Couldn't it be a note and a dotted line also? Bowcutt: It could be graphically shown or shown in -- McKinnon: I think graphically depicted with a note would be -- okay. Thanks. Bowcutt: Usually, graphically depicted is the best route. They see them a little better than in the notes. Borup: Yes. That's -- I have seen that happen. The notes don't always get read. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Becky, I had a note here on Page 6 of the ACHD report. You would really like to leave Item 4 in there and have that option, wouldn't you, to have the driveway along Machine Avenue? Bowcutt: I think -- I think we'd like the option. Centers: Well -- and you mentioned maybe storage -- Bowcutt: Yes. Centers: -- on that 25,000 -- I think that would be uglier than a driveway. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 17 of 132 Bowcutt: Well, yes, I guess it depends -- you would have to fence it out if -- if it were storage it would typically be fenced out. Centers: Yes. Bowcutt: Then you would have some type of a corridor type fencing system. Centers: But if you were going with the driveway, you're going to do your landscaping and that type of thing, as you mentioned earlier. Bowcutt: Yes. Centers: So I think that that would look better. I just wanted to compliment you again, as I have before, and other presenters, as I have mentioned, if they would take a lessen, we have your memo here and all we had to do was just look down and done this, will comply, you just specify each item. Good job. The only two things that we need to add are the turn around and, then, what Commissioner Zaremba brought up. Bowcutt: That's correct. Centers: Excellent. Bowcutt: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: I also agree that your presentations are very helpful to us. I'm not so sure I would want you to have to train your competition, though. Centers: She could charge for it. Zaremba: It would be nice if they did it, too. Borup: Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none, Commissioners? Centers: Well, I think it would be in order to close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: I will second that motion. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Do we need to discuss the wording of those two -- Centers: I made some notes here. Applicant to provide a turn around at the south end of Machine Avenue to comply with the fire department -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 18 of 132 Zaremba: It's the north end of -- Centers: Would be the -- Zaremba: It's the south end of their property, but it's the north end of Machine Avenue. Borup: Correct. Machine Avenue comes off of Commercial right now. Centers: Oh. Okay. Okay at the north end of Machine Avenue to comply with the city. Then, install no parking signs along the whole area and, then, the building on Lot 1, Block 6, should be set back 20 feet from the Machine Avenue lot line would that be correct and be noted on the plat? Borup: Noted and graphically depicted. Centers: Pardon? Borup: Noted and graphically depicted. Centers: Right on the plat. Anybody have anything else? Zaremba: That and the few deletions that staff has noted. Centers: Yes so I will -- Rohm: Jerry, is Machine Avenue platted all the way to Pine Avenue? Borup: No. Rohm: So it wouldn't be -- it wouldn't be 20 feet back from Machine Avenue, it would be -- Zaremba: The western property line. Rohm: -- from the west property line. Zaremba: Of Block 6, Lot 1. Rohm: Right. Borup: Right. Zaremba: West property line of Block 6, Block 1 and, then, the decision about do we want this applicant to add bollards at the east end of Commercial Avenue. I think that's a good idea. ACHD is requiring it. I think we just don't negate that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 19 of 132 Centers: Well, yes, I think they had said that they are going to comply with all the ACHD requirements, so that's in there. Borup: See, I don't think they should have to. It's a private street. Zaremba: Well, it's not this applicant's problem, but what would it take to make that private portion comply with ACHD? Borup: I don't know now. Zaremba: Just not put enough face under it or -- Borup: It's because of the attitude of the other landowner is the only reason it's not a public street. Zaremba: Well, the construction isn't adequate right? Borup: We don't know. It was never pre-approved and inspected during construction is the problem, I believe. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is numerous reasons why it doesn't meet the ACHD's requirement for a public road, not the least of which is there is some drainage issues and the lack of sidewalks on the full length of the property. Zaremba: I would support for now the bollards and when that property ever comes up to put it on them to fix the road to standards. Centers: That would be the case. Zaremba: And, then, the bollards could be removed. Borup: That's fine. I mean I just -- it's a private road. If they don't want anybody going to it, they need to put the barricade up, which, apparently, is already there anyway. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if it's a requirement in ACHD's -- if those are requirements of ACHD's, we don't necessarily need to adopt them as our own, however, unless, you'd like to adopt them as our own in case ACHD changes their mind, so -- Zaremba: I think my only question was whether we were going to countermand it and if we agree we are not going to countermand it, then, we don't need to mention it. Borup: Right. I think it would be up to the Commission. I wouldn't mind seeing us leave it up to the option of the applicant. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 20 of 132 Centers: The bollards? Borup: Yes. Centers: And, then, they talk to ACHD? Borup: Yes. If they can talk ACHD out of it, I -- which they probably wouldn't, but I -- Zaremba: The end result being -- Borup: The only reason I'm saying that, I guess I'm still bothered by the other landowner's previous attitude. Zaremba: Me, too, but that doesn't bleed over to this. Borup: No. Well, it is, it's -- Zaremba: Well, it does impact, doesn't it? Borup: It does impact them. Centers: We could say that we don't necessarily require bollards on Commercial street and it would be up to the applicant to talk to ACHD, but -- Borup: Sounds like it's not a big deal either way. Zaremba: If we say nothing, that will -- Borup: I don't think they care either way. Centers: Okay. All right. Well, I will make the motion here, Mr. Chairman, regarding Item 4, is it, on our Agenda? PP 02 -- I would recommend approval to the City Council for 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 Sub No. 4 by Thomas T. Wright. At the west of North Eagle Road and west of East Pine Avenue, including all staff comments, with the exception of Page 4. Strike Number 3, strike Number 7, strike Number 8, and additional -- additional requirements would be to install a turn around at the north end of Machine Avenue. Also, install no parking signs all along that area and, then, any building placed on Lot 1, Block 6, should be 20 feet from the west property line and should be noted on the plat, that language. I think that's it. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 21 of 132 Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from January 2, 2003: 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 6. Continued Public Hearing from January 2, 2003: 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: Item Numbers 5 and 6, AZ 02-028 and PP 02-027, are both Continued Public Hearings from the January 2nd meeting, so we would -- well, we don't need to open them. We'd like to proceed with those. I think we left that with a number of items that need to be addressed and, Mr. McKinnon, would you like to speak to how those items were addressed? McKinnon: I sure would. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You should have all received a revised staff report for this application. You should have, underneath the application summary, in bold stating that this is a revision and the date of January 13th by myself at the end of that paragraph. I assume you were all here at the last meeting, but on the overhead there is an example of the plat. This plat that we have on the overhead right now does not show the changes that have been made by the applicant. However, we will be able to detail a lot of the information that you do have from the revised plat that we still need to discuss tonight and some of the issues that have been resolved. I'd like to have you all turn to Page 6 of the new staff report, the revised staff report. Item Number 2 regarding the Development Agreement, we have added a new sentence to this recommendation for approval -- for the condition of approval that a Development Agreement also include a temporary building restriction on Lot 4, Block 13, that's this area highlighted on this map. The new revised plat shows a temporary emergency vehicle access at this location, heading diagonally through Lot 4, accessing this irrigation maintenance road and, then, directing all the way back out to McMillan Road. We would require that that lot be required to have a building restriction until such time as the second phase of the project would provide a secondary means of access to that area. That would be the only -- the only requirement that we had that changed on the annexation. If I could get you now to turn to Page 7 of the staff report concerning additional considerations. Item Number 1, again, an additional sentence has been added to the additional consideration concerning lot dimensions and setbacks. While the applicant was revising the plat, one of the requirements was that he add a stub street in this location to the open space at the end of this cul-de-sac. The applicant has done that. However, in making those changes, he's reduced the minimum cul-de-sac frontage from over 40 to less than 40. There is a requirement for a 40-foot frontage -- there is a 40-foot frontage requirement, but there is now 38 feet, so the plat will have to be changed. Not stub street. Did I say stub street? I'm sorry. I meant minimum frontage requirement. Excuse me. Lot No. 3 -- Item No. 3 -- gosh, I'm Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 22 of 132 getting my words confused. I'll slow down. Additional considerations, Number 3, micropaths. The applicant has added the micropath as were discussed at the last meeting. We have eliminated the block length. These two go together because one of the requirements at the last meeting was that they add some micropaths in order to break up the block lengths and to submit for a Variance. The applicant has submitted for a Variance for the block lengths and they have added the stub streets that were requested. At this time staff would ask for further -- further micropaths in the locations that are highlighted and noted in the plat -- noted in the staff report. That would be this open space that leads to this open space. Rather than just have that be a grassy narrow pathway, with no asphalt, we would ask that there be an asphalt pathway to connect to this open space within this area, rather than -- and the reason for this would be that although it meets and exceeds the width of the micropath requirement. Unless it is a micropath there, the developer and people who buy homes in this location would be allowed to put fences that are six feet tall adjacent to that. We'd like to limit them from putting six-foot tall fences adjacent to that narrow access to the open space. In addition to that, the open space, this long narrow piece, rather than just leave that as grassy open space, we would require that that be developed as a micropath, giving access there, just to keep it from becoming a six-foot tall fence corridor back to open space. Centers: A four-foot fence would be the maximum. McKinnon: A four-foot fence would be the max and that is going to be another one of the additional requirements of the plat that we are going to go through tonight. It wasn't caught at the original time of review that the plat did not include a note to -- a note to limit those to four feet. On Page 8 -- Borup: David? McKinnon: Yes. Borup: Could there be a requirement for a maximum fence height without making that a micropath, which would accomplish the same thing as far as the fencing. McKinnon: We could do that. Borup: I mean that could be an option. McKinnon: That could be an option. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: That absolutely could be an option. Onto Page 8, we were able to strike three of the additional considerations. The first one being right of way. The applicant has revised the plat to show the actual right of way. In addition to that, Item Number 8, the street buffering and landscaping, that has been addressed by the applicant on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 23 of 132 new plan. Number 10, the office park common areas, they have -- they have on the new plat -- do you remember correctly -- if you remember from the last time you met on this project there were a number of lots within the office park area that weren't common and they weren't connected and the applicant has cleaned that up. Page 9, Number 12, the irrigation easement needs to be stricken. That was the small 10-foot wide easement along the north, just from here to here. There was some discussion as to why it was just in those locations. The applicant has addressed that. Staff to -- well, to the staff's approval. We no longer have that as an additional consideration. Finally, there is a -- Zaremba: David, I'm sorry to interrupt. Identify that again. To me north is here. McKinnon: Oh, north. I'm sorry. Top of the screen. I usually have them oriented north is the top. Sorry. There was a 10 foot wide irrigation easement running across the top of the east side, I guess, of the property and that is a lateral, it's right up through there, and it will soon be vacated, according to the developer. Item Number 13, a new temporary vehicle access. I just brought that up, because the applicant has included that. In talking with the Fire Department, that temporary vehicle access on Lot 4 down in the corner of this plat is required to be improved in such a manner that a fire truck or a vehicle that weighs 70,000 pounds would be able to pass across that. I have talked with the applicant about that and they said that that would not be a problem to improve that roadway and improve a vehicular access across that lot to standards that would support a 70,000-pound vehicle. The site-specific comments are still the same until we get to Page 10 and the License Agreement for Settler's Irrigation for the proposed trees along the street buffer. I'm just going to go through the changes and I'm going to just -- I will go through and tell you how they made some of these changes. The applicant is here tonight to explain some of the changes, because staff still has some concerns with a few of them and we will address the street buffer in just a little bit in more depth. Item Number 10. This is the new micropath that we requested that Chairman Borup just talked about that would be possible to possibly limit the fence height at that location. Item Number 12, we talked just a second ago about that, that the fence height adjacent to the micropaths and they had to add -- they have to add a note to the face of the plat regarding the dedication and maintenance of Lot 1, Block 1, and the other lots -- this is all under Item Number 12. What lots those are referring to are these lots that run around the periphery of the subdivision. These are the access roads for the maintenance of the irrigation ditches and those are not addressed in the plat or by the applicant as to who will -- who will be maintaining those and who the ownership will be of those and the applicant can address that tonight. Typically, we require that those be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, but I haven't had a chance to talk with the applicant concerning their final decision on how they would like to handle those. We'd like some information on that tonight regarding dedication and maintenance of those lots. Again, the applicant has made several corrections to the lot dimensions. This is Item Number 13. However, they haven't caught all of the lot dimensions and they are noted in here to require that those minimum lot -- the minute -- not the minimum. Excuse me. Require that the lot dimensions be included on the face of the plat. Item Numbers 14 and 15 were stricken. They have added phase lines and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 24 of 132 they have added labels as requested. Finally, going back to the recommendation on Page 12, they have, essentially, addressed all the items that have not been stricken. The bullet points. The micropaths have been addressed and included by the applicant. However, there was still some discussion concerning the stub street that would have been located at approximately someplace along this block to access the multi -- the multi-family housing or the attached single-family housing area. The Lemp Canal easement width, this is something that is out on the frontage right here, running from top to bottom. There was some discussion as to how wide the Lemp Canal easement was there and where it was located and whether or not it was properly located. In discussion with the applicant in the last couple of weeks, they have determined that the Lemp Canal is right on the edge of pavement. A requirement for the 40-foot easement is not necessarily a requirement of Settler's, because of the fact that part of what would be the 40-foot easement, 20 feet on either side of the center line, currently exists in public right of way. There would be no requirement for those 20 feet to be in an easement, because it's already public land and the applicant can address that a little bit more. Staff does have concerns, however, that Settler's Irrigation has not yet issued a letter saying that that's the case. We don't know that that's truly the case yet it was just the developer saying that this is how they believed that Settler's would handle this. In the past Settler's has requested that they have an access road on both sides of the ditch. If that's the case, that could dramatically change what happens on the road frontage in this subdivision. The right of way width has been addressed. The street buffer and landscaping width was addressed. The office park parking has not yet been addressed. The applicant still has all the parking shown on the plat for this and the parking for the subdivision in the office park area does not meet the landscape requirements and, again, staff would suggest that they just eliminate all the parking shown on the plat, because we are not approving it the way they have shown that. The easiest way to do that would just be to eliminate the parking and, then, come back in with their Certificates of Zoning Compliance and show us what parking they are doing and meeting the Landscape Ordinance. They have met the other requirement for the plat notes and data. Those are the things that we have changed. The applicant is here tonight and the things that we really need to have addressed tonight, just to put it into a nutshell, would be that the lots around the periphery of the subdivision and the maintenance roads. We need to find out who is going to own and maintain those and whether they are just going to remain as access roads. We need to have some discussion tonight concerning the Lemp Canal easement along the street frontage and whether or not Settler's Irrigation would require them to have a 40-foot easement for the entire width of that -- that irrigation ditch. If you would like, we can discuss a little bit more, whether or not there should be a stub street in the original proposed location here. I know there was a lot of discussion about that. I read the minutes from the last meeting, it seems that you were in favor of allowing them not to have a stub street if there was a micropath there. There is a micropath, but if you would like to re-address that tonight, we believe that that would be something that would be appropriate for discussion. With that, I would ask if there are any questions of staff and turn the time back over to you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 25 of 132 Zaremba: Just a comment on the stub street that you were just talking about. My recollection of that was it actually was a two-part choice that there should be a stub street where you're talking about or, the alternative is a micropath that is shown and an access directly onto McMillan. McKinnon: Right. Zaremba: And, according to the new plat that I have, they have a note that says there is a future street access onto McMillan, so that there are two ways in and out of the unplatted portion, if that is going to happen. In that case, then, the micropath was satisfactory. McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, Members of the Commission, your statement is accurate and the note on the plat says that it would be in compliance with the ACHD guidelines. However, it's not a street that actually has been approved by ACHD at this time. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay any other questions from the Commission? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? I think Mr. McKinnon did a good job of summarizing. Is there anything you want to -- is that what you're planning on doing is hitting those points that he mentioned? Fluke: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. We did endeavor to make all the changes that the Commission wanted to see from the last hearing and I think we pretty did that, with a couple of small oversights, one of those being the parking area that -- the office park. We don't have any problem with turning it off or putting the landscape islands in -- turning off the line work that is for the parking. Not a problem. Borup: So that would be your choice at this time, you're just going to delete the parking? Fluke: That's fine, if that's staff's preference, or we can put the landscape islands in compliance with the Landscape Plan. They are shown correctly on the Landscape Plan. The line work just didn't get transferred over to the plat, so no big deal either way. We did add the micropaths, as you wanted. Not a problem with fixing the frontage on this lot. That has been done. We added the path here. We do have room for a stub. We would ask that you not impose a condition of approval on us adding the stub street there. We do have room, we can do it later on, but we would prefer to explore this secondary access with ACHD when we come back with the subsequent application for development of this parcel here. Borup: Now, you're in agreement with having that as a non-build on that lot? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 26 of 132 Fluke: Fine with the non-build. I do want to take exception with the language and just ask that we do modify that. If you want to look at Page 6 of the staff report, Number 2 at the top of the page, it says -- there is a dash about mid paragraph. A little further than mid, where it says, until a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development is approved for the project, we would just simply ask that that -- that you strike a Conditional Use Permit for a planned and just insert an appropriate application for development. We understand that we have to submit a new application for development of the parcel. We just don't know that it will have to be a Planned Development Application. We don't want, later on, to have that become a problem for us. Zaremba: Actually, we should discuss that. The staff has suggested that it does require a Planned Development, that when it comes back, it does come back as a Planned Development. What is the -- what difference does it make? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, I can take a crack at that. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Fluke: The R-8 zone would allow for lots as small -- we have asked for R-8 zoning on all of this, except for the office park. Borup: And that's what -- I was going to ask if that's what direction you're going. You're saying you may -- you may end up designing something there that would be in compliance with an R-8, possibly? Fluke: Correct. R-8 would allow us to go down to lots as small as 4,500 square feet. McKinnon: 4,000. Fluke: 4,000, 4,500, somewhere in there. What we have always intended to do with that, although it's not been decided, as largely due to the market conditions, but what was intended was to do something higher density in there, attached single-family is likely, you know, row homes, town homes, that kind of thing, on smaller lots. A zero lot line type of development, which would require a plat -- we'd have to come in here and create some lots on here, because all this -- this big lot will only be entitled to a single Building Permit. I can guarantee you we won't be building a single-family dwelling or a duplex on that lot, we are going to have to come back in and plat it. We wouldn't necessarily have to do a Planned Development. If we get into a Planned Development, when we don't have to, it raises other questions with open space, I mean -- and other amenities that might have to be required, when we wouldn't be asking for anything special that would require a Planned Development. Just bear in mind that we have designed the development with over 10 percent open space, five being required. We designed it with that in mind and we will provide open space, so you will get another crack at it. It might be a Planned Development, it might be a Rezone on there, but just Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 27 of 132 know that you will see an appropriate application before it develops. We are not asking for a Carte Blanch on -- Centers: Yes. Well, you want to remove the words Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development. Fluke: Right and we would just say an appropriate application for a development, because there will be an application required regardless. We just want -- we don't to be locked into a Planned Development when the law might not requirement it. We might just come in with something in compliance with the R-8 zone and you will review that as a plat. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, and Daren, staff has not objections to the requested change. That would be appropriate. Zaremba: What I was focusing on and I finally found it -- on Page 5 under additional considerations, one, two, three, four -- the fourth sentence in that paragraph says, staff further recommends that the future project be required to be approved as a Planned Development. Borup: I think that was making the assumptions that they were going to go ahead with the high-density project. Zaremba: So we are all right with dropping the requirement? I tend to agree with the applicant, as long as the entire -- I realize they are doing it in two phases, but as long as the entire project complies with an R-8 zone, how far a field could they go on that one little parcel? Borup: And it still has to come back before us anyway. Zaremba: Yes. McKinnon: Again, staff has no objections to the request -- Zaremba: So we can release that? McKinnon: Yes. Fluke: Thank you. Borup: And the other was just a Conditional -- I mean additional consideration for -- sensitive for discussion. It wasn't -- that part wasn't in their comments. Centers: Yes. It wasn't a requirement, but as they say -- Zaremba: Paragraph two that Mr. Fluke was mentioning. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 28 of 132 Fluke: Right. It was Steve's preference that it be a Planned Development and I spoke with him at length about that and, then, we discussed it at the last hearing as well. Borup: So it would have to either be changed, the wording -- could we just cross out Conditional Use Permit for a planned and just stay until a development is approved and a project. Centers: Appropriate application for. Fluke: That would be fine with us. Moving on to Page 7, Item Number 4 on the stub streets. Again, we would just simply ask that any condition that you put on, either or condition, that we either provide a stub street here or that we provide an additional connection, either -- it would be a street or a drive access, depending on the type of development that goes in here to McMillan Road. Under the current conditions, there is no problem getting another access there. We meet all the offsets. There are no driveways or any streets that are in the way and that would be the preference. What we don't necessarily want to have happen is to have vehicular traffic from the detached single-family portion of the development winding its way through what will likely be narrow roads and a higher density development. We have provided a pedestrian connection right here, which is what we are -- what the staff was trying to get at was connectivity and, then, the other consideration is secondary access or two points of access to this and we think we can do it better by McMillan. If we can't get this access for some reason, then, we will have to provide a stub here. We still have to have that figured out by Phase 1 or 2 of the single-family development. We are just asking to modify that one. We talked about the parking lot layout. With regard to these lots, these contain irrigation ditches. In this one it will be piped here along the east boundary. This is the White Drain here. It's a rather large drainage feature and it is Settler's preference that that remain open. They did request that, the City Council, with the approval of Cedar Springs No. 1. We anticipate that that will be true for this. We can show that that's large enough that it wouldn't typically have to be piped, that, you know, the pipe would have to be so big that it wouldn't be economical to do it. What we did with Cedar Springs No. 1 right here was platted in a common lot that is owned by the homeowner's association. An easement is, then, given to Settler's and they are responsible for the maintenance of it. Zaremba: Who? Fluke: The Settler's Irrigation District and it was their preference that that's how it handled and we anticipate that that's how it will be handled on this phase as well -- or on this project, but, again, these are issues that we typically work out at the Final Plat stage. We just never know at the preliminary plat stage. We have a good idea, but I can't tell you for sure. Zaremba: If that were the result, you're okay with that? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 29 of 132 Fluke: Yes I mean we have to -- we have to satisfy Settler's, unfortunately, and they are somewhat difficult to work with. We have managed to comply with them in the past and, you know, whatever it is, we have designed it the way we did, because that's what they have indicated they are going to want, but until we get to the Final Plat stage, we won't have anything in writing. Centers: From the Settler's or the homeowner's association? Fluke: The homeowner's association will own the lot, it will own the real estate, but Settler's will have an exclusive easement on it and they will be responsible for the maintenance. Borup: And that's for the White Drain? Fluke: Correct. Borup: Okay. How about that other -- Fluke: We anticipate them doing that with this ditch as well. Borup: That's Settler's also? Fluke: Yes and that will be in a pipe on that one. Borup: So they would be doing the east and the south? Fluke: Correct. Now, with regard to -- and we may as well talk about the Lemp Canal here on the north end of the property and the right of way issue. Right now, there exists 50 feet of right of way, prescriptive right of way along McMillan Road that would be 25 feet from centerline. Our description goes to the centerline of the road currently. If you take 25 feet -- well, you see it on your new drawing. We worked it out on there. There is 25 feet per the right of way. The existing ditch -- the edge -- there is only 12 feet of pavement there from centerline on our side, so there is an additional 12 or 13 feet of right of way that's not paved. The edge of the Lemp Canal comes right up to the edge of that existing right of way so there is no conflict between the right of way and the Lemp Canal currently. What we have done is left the right of way at 25 feet, as was requested by ACHD, we have centered a 40-foot easement on the existing ditch per staff's comments from the last hearing. That's why you see that easement line going into the right of way, it's redundant, it's likely that it won't be shown that way on the Final Plat, but we just did it because of the discussion at the last hearing. Then, south of the right of way line, Settler's has an additional 20 feet of easement where we don't show anything. Okay. I mean that's theirs. It's likely they are going to want a road in there. What our preference would be -- to put grass creet in there nor something, that looks nice and will hold their trucks, but we are going to be at their mercy on that. Then, we show an additional 35 feet of landscaping south of their easement. We have accommodated the canal in its existing location. We do anticipate that that will be left Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 30 of 132 open and we will either show hydraulically that it needs to be left open or we will get Settler's to request it to the City Council and we don't anticipate that it will be a problem. It's a fairly significant ditch. Centers: Will they have an access road on each side? Fluke: There will be right of way on the north side of their ditch public right of way. The right of way comes right up to the edge of their ditch currently, so they will have -- there will be a sidewalk there and, then, two feet. Borup: They don't want to use that side for maintenance I take it? Fluke: Well, they, initially, wanted a road on both sides. Borup: Well, I think that's what Commissioner Centers is getting at, why on both sides? Centers: Well, that's what the staff had mentioned earlier, that sometimes they do require that. Fluke: Yes. They will ask for everything initially and, then, you know, when we get to the Final Plat is where we really try to get something that works for everybody. So -- and, like I said, they are somewhat difficult to work. If you'd like to -- if this Commission would like to recommend that they don't have a road there, we would be certainly happy to comply with that. Zaremba: Let me see if I understand correctly. On the north side of the canal, if they wanted to drive along and park maintenance trucks, they would actually be parking on McMillan? Fluke: Correct. There would be a sidewalk. Zaremba: That's why they probably want a south side road. Or at least -- Fluke: Well, bear in mind, that there is 12 feet from the current edge of pavement to their ditch. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Fluke: So there will be sidewalk two feet within that right of way. In other words, ditch, two-foot strip of land, then, a six-foot sidewalk. Zaremba: They could park their trucks on the sidewalk. Fluke: Well, they can. The sidewalks will support a truck, for as much as they maintenance that ditch. I mean if you have been out there recently, you see they -- they don't seem too worried about it currently. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 31 of 132 Zaremba: Once a year they come along and burn, probably, and that's about it. Fluke: Or once in 10 years. Zaremba: Yes. Fluke: So, you know, again, this is something that we would love to have it worked out now, but we have left plenty of margin there to work it out no matter what they want so I think we are well covered on that. As far as the micropaths, these were intended to be paths they just weren't indicated that way on the legend so not a problem with just putting the hatching on those and developing those as micropaths to the standards of the landscape ordinance. Borup: Okay so that was your intention anyway? Fluke: Correct. Borup: Just those two or the wide one also? Fluke: I think everything else is shown the way it should be. Borup: Okay so it will just be those two? Fluke: Correct. Centers: If I understand correctly, it would be Block 14 up in the corner there, just eliminate all of the parking indication on the plat, and you would do the landscaping? Fluke: This? Centers: Correct. Fluke: We have a Landscape Plan in the application that I believe complies, so it's just -- we can either make the line work here jive with the Landscape Plan or we can just turn the line work off for the parking. Centers: Right. Fluke: We will just indicate it as parking and I think that's all. Dave, did I miss anything? Centers: Yes, I think it is. Zaremba: Let me do one on that subject before. If it's just as easy for you either way, I probably would prefer that you show the landscaping. Fluke: Okay. That's fine. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 32 of 132 Zaremba: So that the two pieces look the same. Fluke: Sure. Borup: And the McKinney Lateral, will that -- oh, that's not a separate lot, that's just an easement. Fluke: That's an easement yes. We should maybe discuss this. This is a -- this is going to be treated as a user's ditch, rather than as a ditch owned and maintained by Settler's. It only serves one property to the west and it's likely that that -- this will not be around very long, that's why we intend to put it in a pipe and a 10 foot easement, rather than putting it in a common lot. We also have the option of running the water from this ditch and simply running it through this stub through an easement through the park here and I discussed that with our engineer and so we will work that out one way or the other, but we don't really need anything more than that easement here on the north. Borup: Okay so to the staff question on -- as far as ownership and maintenance, the homeowner's association will retain ownership and Settler's will intend to do the maintenance of this -- Fluke: Actually, we -- the homeowner's association will be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of it. Borup: No. I meant of the other two. Fluke: Oh the other two? Correct. Borup: Right. Fluke: Yes. Borup: No. I understood the homeowners would be maintenance on this one. Fluke: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I think if you recall at the last hearing -- correct me if I'm wrong -- we talked about additional tests on the groundwater from the year 2000 to date. Fluke: Correct. Centers: Did you bring those tests? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, thank you for bringing that up. I forgot to mention that. The north part of this property is -- has been owned by a different owner who had those test wells installed. The wells are there and we have -- we had them Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 33 of 132 checked when we did the application, but they have not been monitoring them through time, and we are going to have to begin the monitoring now of those wells and we will do that, you know, through the next year. Centers: They are really not wells. Fluke: Well, they are test bids. Centers: Test holes. Fluke: Yes. Centers: I guess I would want to hear what staff thinks of that, but if you did have a problem with the DEQ, the way I understood it at the last hearing, was that some of your buildable lots could become open space. Fluke: Well -- Centers: That, of course, didn't have structures on them. Fluke: Right and I will just go ahead and address that. We have got ample open space to accommodate about 10 percent or over 10 percent. What we anticipate and what the initial investigation has shown is that we have similar hydrological conditions to Cedar Springs to the south of us. Groundwater there was running about seven feet below surface and that has been monitored through time. Our landscape architect was able to design an open space system that complied with both the City's Landscape Ordinance, as well as the DEQ requirements and that is what we anticipate to do with this future phase. We understand -- or with this future development. We understand that if the DEQ says that we are not able to infiltrate water and Settler's says we can't put any water into the ditches, the drainage water, that the city is going to end up with some very large, very ugly drainage structures and it won't be just our development, it will be all kinds of developments out here. You will be in a bad way, but -- Centers: Well, you said you had ample open space of 10 percent. Are you saying, then, that you would use part of that for drainage and not replace it, so that you still had ten percent when you had a finished project? Fluke: We will comply with the Landscape Ordinance and we will comply with the requirements of DEQ. Center: Yes. You're offering up 10 percent, which is in excess. Fluke: Correct. Centers: So if you need additional lots for drainage, are you going to take -- or additional area, are you going to take it from the existing 10 or are you going to end up with 10 percent period? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 34 of 132 Fluke: We don't have a problem with the condition the way it's written. I mean if we have to take out more lots because the city, DEQ and Settler's want large drainage structures on there, large ponds -- Centers: That's what I'm getting at. If DEQ becomes involved and you need more drainage area -- and, let's face it, most of the area that you're supplying there now is due to drainage correct? Fluke: Well, it does accommodate drainage. Centers: Right, so I'm concerned that we wouldn't lose part of that 10 percent. Fluke: We understand that -- Centers: And you end up with 10. It may not be configured exactly that way and I understand that, so -- Fluke: Okay. Centers: As long as we are in agreement, that's fine. Borup: Daren, the monitor wells were put in, in 2000 or prior to that? Fluke: I'm sorry. Say again. Borup: The wells the monitoring wells. Fluke: Yes. Borup: Were they installed in the year 2000? Fluke: They were. Borup: And so they were measured at that time? Fluke: They were measured at that time and we have current data. Borup: And you have got current data, so we are only -- Fluke: So it is measuring through time and we weren't checking the piezometer, you know, several times a year like you should. Centers: Yes four times a year. Fluke: So we are going to have to monitor it through this -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 35 of 132 Borup: But you got measurements for then and now and -- Fluke: Yes. Borup: And assuming that's consistent with the other, you sound like you feel comfortable with the results. Centers: Well -- and the other measurement, Mr. Chairman, was at a time when the groundwater would be lower, if I recall. I'm not going to look back, because I'm sure I'm right on that. Fluke: I think it was in the fall. Centers: Yes after -- Fluke: About the time water gets turned off. Centers: Right. Borup: Well, that's about the time about as high as it is, unless it's a long time after. McKinnon: August is the highest time. Centers: Whatever but -- Fluke: I don't remember when we checked them. Centers: As the applicant knows, they need to measure it three or four times. Borup: Right but I guess what I'm thinking -- and, apparently, they feel comfortable with that -- if those measurements, the few that they have, are consistent with the adjoining subdivision, the assumption would be the other ones in between that would probably say the same ratio. Centers: Oh, I don't think the applicant wants a problem like another leading builder in town has presently. I think you're going to do your tests and you're not going to build basements, I bet. Fluke: No, I don't think there will be basements. Centers: Or allow them. Well, what if the builder wants to go in there and build a basement? I mean are we going to have anything on the plat or -- you know, when you have a seven-foot -- pardon? What was mentioned is that the covenants will require the builders to do their own testing, whether they could put in a basement correct? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 36 of 132 Borup: We need to get that on testimony. Centers: Yes but -- Borup: I don't know if we can -- I mean you can't legislate against stupidity. Centers: That's true. Borup: If someone wants to do something against all common sense and advice, I don't know if we can worry about every little thing like that. Centers: Yes and I think if they put it in the covenants and, then, warn them there you have got to do your own tests then, that builder is going to be held liable if they have water in the basement. Fluke: All of north Meridian has similar conditions and so the builders around here are accustomed to doing that. Centers: That's fine with me. Zaremba: Let me ask just one kind of a housekeeping question, I guess. Is it still 197 building lots and 33 other lots since that sometimes seems to change on a revised plat? You're not aware that you eliminated any lots or -- Fluke: Correct. Yes. The lot count didn't change from any of the amendments. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: The micropaths just made the others smaller and, then, we have got one non- buildable, so that would be the only -- Fluke: Temporarily non-buildable. Borup: Temporarily. Zaremba: So it's still 197 and 33. Centers: That cul-de-sac with 38-foot frontage, is that the one you're referring to as temporary? Fluke: No. I was, actually, referring to this. Centers: Okay. Fluke: What we have got is a temporary emergency access. Centers: But you have corrected that 38-foot frontage? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 37 of 132 Fluke: Yes we have already done that internally. I didn't submit new drawings, but -- Centers: Well, we will just require it. Fluke: We just had to scoot it around a little bit. Centers: Yes. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Fluke: Thank you. Borup: Thank you, Daren. Do we have anyone else to testify on this application? Seeing none -- Centers: I have a question for staff. How did you feel about the comments about the canal what's the name of that canal? McKinnon: Lemp. Centers: Yes. Lemp. I guess it's up to them to work it out with Settler's correct? McKinnon: It is and it -- wow, just a couple issues that were involved. The idea that Settler's could come back and say we want additional right of way, we want, you know, some roadway on both sides, we want you to do something with this canal, other than what's there right now, that option is still there. If Settler's comes back after you guys have approved this tonight and makes a separate requirement of the applicant, all the frontage on McMillan is going to change. All the Landscape Plans that have been submitted and all of the office park area that fronts onto it will all have to be shifted. That's something that makes me a little bit nervous. Centers: So if we say if Settler's requires access on the south side of the Lemp Canal, then, this applicant would have to come back? Borup: They are okay on the south side, aren't they? Centers: I thought it was the south side. McKinnon: The south side has got the 20 feet. It's the north side that -- where there is a public right of way. Borup: But that's the existing right of way right now? McKinnon: That's the existing right of way right now. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 38 of 132 Borup: So they have got to -- you're saying they can move their right of way just on a whim? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I might, on the north, it's just not ours to give. I mean we don't own it. The deeds show that the property line is the centerline, which is -- of the road, which is the section line. ACHD has served a prescriptive right of way there, because they have maintained that road for more than, whatever it is, seven or eight years, whatever is required. They assert ownership of 25 feet from centerline, which 25 feet from centerline would take you right to the edge of the Lemp Canal. Okay so, then, you have got your Lemp Canal and we have given them from -- from the center line of the Lemp Canal another 20 feet south, before we start our 35 feet of landscaping. It can only get better for us. If we don't have to give them 20 feet, if they only want 12 feet and a road, we gain eight feet that way. Borup: So, then, Mr. McKinnon is saying can they go in and shift their -- is that what you're -- wouldn't they also have to move the canal, though? Fluke: We would maintain that they cannot make us move the canal. We don't need to move it. It's out of the right of way. We will give them -- Borup: Well, no, I don't think they will make you move the canal, but -- I mean to shift the right of way, that would be the option is to move canal, wouldn't it? They are not going to do that either. McKinnon: There could be a shift in the easement. Fluke: If -- Borup: But for what purpose? McKinnon: For maintenance. Settler's -- I don't understand how they set their policy and that's one of the things that has me concerned, is we don't have anything from Settler's saying this is what we want on the Lemp Canal. We don't know what their policy is on the Lemp Canal right now. Centers: Will you have it resolved before the City Council Meeting? Fluke: I doubt it. Typically, we have nothing in writing until we get to the Final Plat but I mean, like I say, if, for example, ACHD said that they were going to want their typical 48 feet of right of way we had to, then, dedicate another 23 feet. We have then been, required to give 23 feet of right of way to ACHD, sell it to them, and, then, take the canal and move it outside of the new right of way. In that case, you know, yes, Settler's is going to say, okay, take our 40-foot of easement and center it on there and give us 20 feet from center line on both sides because we are not required to move the right of way. We are also not required to move the ditch it can stay where it has historically Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 39 of 132 been located. We will give them their easement, we will give them their access on the south, but we don't have anything to give on the north, because we don't own it. Zaremba: I think we had heard during testimony two weeks ago -- well, I'm not sure whether it was you or one of the other people in the audience -- that they know for a fact that ACHD is planning to take any future right of way on north side and not expand any farther south. Fluke: That's correct and that's in our staff report. That's why we are -- that's why we drew this new plan the way we did. They only want their existing 25 feet of right of way from us. Zaremba: So ACHD isn't going to move south, which means Settler's doesn't have to move south. Fluke: Correct. Zaremba: And you feel that 20 additional feet that you have left can only get smaller? Fluke: Correct. Centers: This is Phase 1 right? Fluke: No I believe we are going to phase from the north end. Centers: Are you? Fluke: So it's likely that the -- Centers: Go ahead. Fluke: -- the office park and the multi-family will remain out as later phases, we will make the road connection, come in and probably do 50 to 75 lots south of the multi- family and the office. Centers: And the Lemp Canal is not a factor, because you're not going to be developing -- right? Fluke: Well -- Borup: That's a good point. At worst, case scenario that could be redesigned, if that's what had to happen. Centers: Yes. That's what I'm saying. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 40 of 132 Fluke: Yes. It's likely that we will want to build the front end -- why don't we let the client come up and discuss that. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have a question for the applicant when he arrives concerning whether or not discussions have been made with ACHD concerning the fact that the Lemp Canal is in their right of way and whether or not they will allow it to remain in their right of way. Is it just adjacent to the right of way, Daren? Borup: Go ahead. Kevin, let's go ahead. Howell: Kevin Howell 3450 Plantation River Drive. As far as the Lemp Canal, yes, we have got plenty of time to work with that and find out exactly what that easement is going to be there. If we do have to put a road on the other side for access, we will. Probable concrete or pavement 10, 12 feet wide and just landscape right to it. Centers: Mr. Howell, excuse me, I think he needs your name and address. Howell: Kevin Howell 3451 Plantation River Drive. Centers: Excuse me. Okay. Howell: So if we do have to put a road on the other side, we will, but I think we can resolve that issue. They have been cleaning out that ditch, actually recently, you can see where they have piled the dirt on it they have been cleaning if from McMillan. Whatever improvements we have to do to it, we will do to it, but we do have plenty of time, because we are not going to do the office buildings probably for a year or two. As far as the drainage is concerned with the water questions, if we had to use up any space, there are places we can add in the parcel that we left out we could drain water to. If you look at Cedar Springs No. 1 and landscaped all of it extensively, try to put benches in there, rocks, boulders, try to make them not look like a drainage pond. We realize, you know, it's a strike against the subdivision to have those drainage ponds, so whatever we do, if we have to put in more, we will make sure that they fit in and not just leave a pit. Borup: Does that answer it? Centers: Yes. Borup: Thank you. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have a question for the applicant. Mr. Howell, just one question for you. Bruce and I were looking at the plat and the whole Lemp discussion we were looking at the McMillan frontage. You have Phase 4, which is the office park, and Phase 5, which is the attached single-family dwelling. You show all of the frontage on McMillan Road, all the landscape buffer being Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 41 of 132 in the fourth and fifth phases. Is it your intention to leave that frontage unimproved with no landscaping until the fourth and fifth phases? Howell: No. I would like to landscape that whole quarter mile. McKinnon: Okay. Howell: Do the whole entry and everything, landscaped fully, so that the office building and the multi-family sides are just basically pads left. McKinnon: So that would be part of the first phase? Howell: So it would be done. McKinnon: Okay. It just shows it as Phases 4 and 5 and we'd like to see you do what you have suggested you're going to do as well. Howell: Sure. Borup: Okay thank you. McKinnon: Thank you. Centers: I have a question that I -- correct me if I'm wrong. I think the canal issue will handle itself if we require the landscaping, as you just discussed. If he has to give up more land, he will still have to meet our Landscape Ordinance. Follow me? He'll just have to move back into his commercial development, if he does that, he will have to come back to us on the commercial development, because what we are approving is the plat tonight, and if that changes, we have a problem. I think we ought to just let it take care of itself. McKinnon: You're absolutely correct on that, Commissioner Centers. Centers: Okay. Zaremba: Well -- and I think the applicant is comfortable that they have 20 feet to play with, so -- McKinnon: Okay. Center: I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 42 of 132 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. I think there were -- I had four items in this -- in the staff comments that need to be addressed. I think we have got all those addressed adequately. Did we? Zaremba: I would add only one that we discussed last time and have not discussed yet this time. This would be an addition on Page 6, Paragraph 2 -- I keep trying to stick in some kind of a statement to the Development Agreement that preserves some rights for the applicant. It could be a statement something like the Development Agreement will include a statement that the density calculations for Lot 18, Block 13, shall consider the entire Cedar Springs North Subdivision. Centers: You have an R-8. Zaremba: I know, but I'm just saying when this comes back as a separate issue and Development Agreement in hand, I don't want it calculated just on that one piece. The density needs to be averaged over the whole parcel. Borup: That's if it didn't come back as a Planned Unit Development, the density could increase, and that's your concern. Centers: That would be their only advantage, if they come back as a PUD. Zaremba: I think they are allowed to have a higher density on there, as long as it's averaged over the whole thing and I'm trying to preserve that for them, so that it doesn't get considered just as an isolated issue. Borup: Can we just state it pretty much just the way you said it? Zaremba: I would just add that sentence to Paragraph 2 or something similar. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, are we going to strike the Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development requirement from the D.A. on Page 6? Borup: Yes. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: For appropriate application. McKinnon: Thank you. Zaremba: The change is to strike Conditional Use Permit for a planned and add the words appropriate application for. That same paragraph -- this is Paragraph 2 on Page 6. At the end of that to add a statement that says the Development Agreement will Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 43 of 132 include a statement that the density calculations for what is currently Lot 18, Block 15, shall consider the entire Cedar Springs North Subdivision. Let's see. The only other thing that I -- on Page 7, Paragraph 6, under additional considerations, we are given the opportunity to recommend our opinion to the City Council about whether the ditches ought to be tiled or not. My opinion is that we should go with the applicant, not tile them, and leave them as open amenities. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe the applicant stated that the property on the east, that ditch, would be tiled and they were intending on tiling that ditch. Zaremba: I think I was just referring to White and Lemp. McKinnon: Oh, just the White and Lemp? Okay. Borup: That's what I assumed you were talking about. Zaremba: White and Lemp that we would -- we would side with the applicant on leaving them open and I think that also complies with the new Comprehensive Plan. Centers: The applicant didn't address the -- I think they are aware of it, but they have to provide -- how does the Fire Department word it? Zaremba: A 20-foot wide -- Centers: Minimum of two points of access will be required for any portion of the project, which serves more than 50 homes. They are aware of that yes. Zaremba: That would affect the phasing to some extent. Centers: Right. Exactly and I guess I'm in agreement with the applicant on the stub street. I don't -- I don't see the need for the stub street. It could be worded stub street or access via McMillan Road. I think that's what the applicant mentioned and I would agree with that. Zaremba: I would make it an alternate, that access to McMillan is okay, but if it does not happen -- Centers: Well, that's the way it's worded. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: The stub street, we leave that in, and we add, or access being at McMillan Road one or the other. Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 44 of 132 Centers: And the applicant agreed to make the micropaths, which would take in effect the Micropath Ordinance for the maximum four-foot fence. Borup: Do you have a comment, Mr. McKinnon? McKinnon: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, specifically Commissioner Centers, in your last comment before, you mentioned that the stub street, they should be given the option to do either/or. Centers: Yes. McKinnon: In the site-specific comments there is nothing that addresses the stub streets. Would you like to -- Centers: You're right. I see that on additional -- additional considerations. McKinnon: Would you like to make that a condition added to the site-specific comments? Centers: On the Preliminary Plat we could just use that verbiage from the consideration. McKinnon: Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you. Centers: Right. Borup: Okay. Centers: I will try and stumble through it. Zaremba: The original staff memo is dated December 13th and the revised staff memo is dated December -- I'm sorry, the 31st . They are both dated December 31st from staff. Centers: Right. It's the revised one. Zaremba: That we reference the revised one as received by the City Clerk on January 14th . Centers: Right. Yes, I had that. I'd like to recommend approval of Item 5 on our Agenda. Item AZ 02-028, request for annexation and zoning of 81.54 acres from RUT to R-8 and L-O zones for the proposed Cedar Springs North Sub by Howell-Murdoch Development Corp, south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road. Including all staff comments, and Page 6, Paragraph 2, strike the words Conditional Use Permit for -- and insert appropriate application for. Then, I would continue on -- Zaremba: I believe strike the word planned also. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 45 of 132 Centers: And planned right. Then, continuing on, it would read development is approved for the project. Then, you would add language that would be beneficial to the developer per that would -- the density calculation would be -- would take into consideration the entire subdivision for that parcel, which is referred to as Lot 18, Block 13 end of motion. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. Did we cover -- Centers: That was just the zoning. Yes. Borup: Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. Correct. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Item Number -- yes. 02-027, the Preliminary Plat. Centers: Yes. I would like to recommend approval for Item 6 on the Agenda, PP 02- 027, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 197 lots and 33 other lots on 81.54 acres in proposed R-8 and L-O zones for proposed Cedar Springs North Sub by Howell- Murdoch Development Corp, south of West McMillan Road and west of North Meridian Road. Including all staff comments, and, in addition -- yes -- note that all staff comments refer to the revised comments by Dave -- originally written by Steve Siddoway and Bruce Freckleton, amended by Dave McKinnon and received by the City Clerk on January 14th . Under site-specific comments on the Preliminary Plat, which starts on Page 9, add as 1-A the paragraph from Page 7, Paragraph 4, referring to stub streets. That item would become 1-A under site-specific comments and in addition to that paragraph, referring to stub streets, just add, or access via McMillan Road either/or. The applicant has indicated that further tests are due for the groundwater and he will, of course, comply with the DEQ and their present open space will be maintained, regardless of those results, if they have to give up more lots to provide for drainage. We are leaving out any reference to the Settler's, as we talked about, that should take care of itself. Does anyone have anything else? Zaremba: Just to express the opinion that we recommend leaving the Settler's Canal and the White Drain untiled. Centers: Correct. Which was -- Borup: And the applicant stated that the ownership would be through the association and maintenance from Settler's. Centers: Oh, Settler's was going to do the maintenance? Borup: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 46 of 132 Zaremba: The homeowners wee going to own the -- Centers: Right. The homeowners would own it right. Zaremba: But Settler's would operate it. Centers: And, then, we concur that the drainage ditches should remain untiled end of motion. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Okay. That concludes those items. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 02-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a bus facility in an I-L zone for Joint School District No. 2 by Joint School District No. 2 – 2170 West Franklin Road: Borup: The next item is Public Hearing CUP 02-046, request for Conditional Use Permit for a bus facility in an I-L zone for Joint School District No. 2 at 2170 West Franklin Road. Open the Public Hearing at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Those of you that have been on the Commission for a little while might -- this application might sound very familiar to you. It's dealing with the bus facility that we have originally discussed many times over at the corner of Ten Mile and Ustick. They have found a new home that they think would work for that, rather than the original proposed location. In front of you on the overhead you can see a map that's giving the area. To give you a little more detail than what's shown in the bolded area, approximately a month and a half ago, two months ago, the City Council approved a Variance for a one time lot split of the lot that you see that's bolded. Essentially, created a lot that runs -- it creates, essentially, what would be a flag lot up to the area that's on the north that runs adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad. The reason for the lot split was to allow Sanitary Services to build at this location and to allow the school district to have an opportunity to propose the application that's in front of you tonight. The application that's in front of you tonight is for a 350-school bus parking facility, a two-story administration building, and a service building. You can see the elevations of the administration building they would like to build. A storage -- a storage and maintenance building and, finally, the overall Site Plan that shows all the bus parking, that would be all this large parking over here, the maintenance building, the administration building, employee parking and additional employee parking. A total of 456 car parking spaces, plus the 350 bus parking spaces, in addition to a fueling station at this location. As you can see from the Site Plan that's on the overheard in front of you, the Eight Mile Canal somewhat diagonally northwest Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 47 of 132 through the proposed development. They have proposed one crossing to allow employees from this parking area and for employees coming from this parking area to cross back and forth across the Eight Mile to access all of the bus parking. Within the bus parking lot the applicant has proposed, rather than to pave the entire area, to use some sort of mixture of recycled asphalt. When Brad wrote the staff report -- if I could have you turn to Page 4 -- he addressed a number of special considerations and one of those would happen to be the recycled asphalt. I have underlined it for emphasis, stating that the city would like to receive more information regarding what type of recycled asphalt this is, whether it's going to be poured or heated and rolled back out through the pug mill again, or whether it's just going to be laid back out onto the surface as if it were black asphalt type gravel. We'd like some more information on that, in addition to the information regarding the drainage within that area. In the parking area they also have a number of posts that would have electrical hook-ups, because the vehicles are diesel and they would like to have the heater cores be able to be plugged in. There is a perimeter driveway that goes throughout the subdivision -- through the outside of the large lot here and this would be completely asphalted, rather than the recycled asphalt. Special consideration E -- I'm going through this backwards, but that's the way it makes sense to me -- is the perimeter landscaping. The applicant has requested that the perimeter landscaping that's typically required, that's one tree for every 35 lineal feet, be reduced to one for every 70, and that's because they have an awful lot of perimeter landscaping that they would need to have. Staff can support the property along the south and the property along the eastern boundary to have that reduction. However, in no case would the staff support a reduction along the north property line adjacent to the railroad. The reason why staff would oppose that is because on the other side of the railroad happens to be residential homes and we believe that those people should be the ones that receive the most amount of protection and buffering from this project. This is a lot of vehicles. They do have back-up alarms and they do -- they rumble just like a diesel engine would rumble. Going to the special consideration one is the Franklin Road landscape buffer and I will go back again to the original photo showing the site. This project that they are proposing, essentially, encompasses the rear half of this property. The applicant will own property that fronts onto Franklin. They are asking at this time that they not be required to improve Franklin, because they are not developing at this time. The only part of the property that they are developing is the property in back. They are proposing two private roads that would run back to the property with temporary turn arounds to the property and they are building those as private roads. In the future and they would be required to dedicate those as public roads. Essentially, the -- Borup: Dave, how much property do they own on Franklin because none of our plans indicate that, I don't believe? The ones we received don't show which -- McKinnon: They currently don't own any -- they don't own the -- they don't own the land -- Borup: Well, how much frontage do they have on Franklin was my -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 48 of 132 McKinnon: They own -- this is the whole -- can you just give me one second to look that up? Just a second. Borup: Well, the parcel fronting on Franklin is going to the Sanitary Services parcel is that correct? McKinnon: A portion of that -- let me go back again. I wish I had the overheads from that application. Essentially, Sanitary Services -- if you can follow my shaking hand -- I'll use two hands. It runs up and, then, runs over and back down. That is what Sanitary Services has is that area. The property on the left -- well, it would be the western side of the project is owned and would be owned by the School District. It looks like the applicant has got something he can show you a little better than I can. Borup: Okay. We do have a plat that shows 300 by 282. Is that the Sanitary Service parcel? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, would it be okay if I came up there to see what you're looking at? Wait Bruce says he's got it. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the rest of the Commission, that is Sanitary -- this is the map I'm looking at, second page of the -- Borup: That little section down in the corner, the bottom right-hand corner -- McKinnon: The bottom right-hand corner is -- Sanitary Services would own that, but they are not planning on developing that right now. The property that they are planning on developing right now is the shape -- the property that goes around that. Centers: Are you looking at this, Dave? McKinnon: I'm looking at this right now. Borup: Correct. That's in the packet, too, Commissioner Centers. Centers: Okay so the access -- the two points for this project are the two roads, the one in the middle and the one on the right-hand side? McKinnon: That's correct. Those would be owned by the applicant, in addition to the property shown on the left-hand side of this map that we are referring to. McKinnon: Okay. Do those access 50 feet, essentially or is that what that is, a 50-foot right of way? McKinnon: This is that 50-foot right of ways and then -- Borup: So they have a total -- so that's what they have is two 50-foot right of ways that front on Franklin? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 49 of 132 McKinnon: No. They have all of the land that's -- all those three parcels -- you see the three sectioned off parcels on the left-hand side -- that would be the western side? Borup: Right. McKinnon: That second road? That's all part of this parcel that we are dealing with tonight. Borup: Okay. McKinnon: They are asking that they not be required to improve the frontage on Franklin at this time for those parcels that front onto Franklin, excluding the SSC-owned property. Borup: So they are saying from the access road to the west? McKinnon: Access road to the west. That's correct. Borup: That was all I wanted to know. McKinnon: Okay. Sorry. Just for the record and for the minutes, the map that we are referring to is the Conceptual Site and Landscape Plan, South Meridian Transport Facility, prepared by LCA. Borup: Okay. I'm sorry, you were -- well, that's where you ended up. Is that your -- McKinnon: That's kind of where I was ending up just a couple small items to address. Staff does recommend approval of this application. We find that this is a more appropriate location for this type of use. It is currently zoned industrial. This is absolutely an industrial use. It does have better separation than the last place that we dealt with and we do support this project. I don't think -- do you have any comments, Bruce, to add concerning the sewer availability? A couple things I would point out to you, in case you haven't had a chance to review it, and they would be Item Numbers 2 and 3 on Page 5 of the site-specific comments and they do make reference to ACHD's requirements. If you haven't had a chance to review those, please, take a little bit of time tonight to review those before you make your motion. We have -- I'm sure you're aware of some of the situations that we are dealing with right now with Ada County Highway District and their ability to purchase right of way and that's the reason for Number 3 having findings B-2-1 or B-2-2. There are actually three options originally presented by ACHD that would be acceptable. We don't find the third option to be acceptable and that third option is to build no sidewalk at all. If you'd take the time just to review what ACHD has written for those two comments. Other than that, staff does support this project. We think this is an appropriate location for this. There are some findings that you will have tonight and it looks like there may be some people here to testify concerning how it may affect property in the area. We would suggest, again, as always, that you take into consideration all those adjoining property owners, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 50 of 132 testimony that they offer concerning how this property may or may not affect them. With that, I'd ask if you have any questions for staff. Borup: Any questions from the Commissioners? Okay does the applicant have a presentation? Thomas: Mr. Chairman, fellow Commissioners, I'm Mike Thomas from Lombard- Conrad Architects, 1221 Shoreline Lane. I'm the representative of the Joint School District tonight. I'd like to just express some verbal testimony for this application, as well as propose a modification to the Conditional Use submittal. Basically, since the School District is a tax-based entity offering a service to Meridian and surrounding communities with limited resources, I'm proposing a modification to the perimeter landscaping, MCC-12-13-11.2E. The reason is, is on the north property with the residential areas to the north, we would like to propose, due to the -- as previously mentioned, that expanse of landscaping, irrigation, and perimeter landscaping around this site, that 20 acre site is impacting the -- significantly impacting the cost of the project. We would like to propose a slatted fence, vision fence, in lieu of landscaping along the north property and go to a chain link fence on all of -- which we already currently have a chain link fence on the east, south, and west property. Mainly, the reason on the west property is we mainly are only screening the school bus facility from the Sanitary Services' undeveloped parcel that in the future is proposed to be a transfer station. With that said, we are spending a lot of money on this property right now in good faith trying to develop this property to fit on the large 28 acre parcel, yet we are bisected by the Eight Mile Lateral, too. We are not only constructing some large crossings across that Eight Mile Lateral and it's using up a fair amount of good real estate for this facility, the cost impacts of that, we would like to lessen that impact and propose a slatted fence in lieu of the perimeter landscape buffer. With that said, I would like to -- Borup: So this is a third option you're proposing now? Originally, the application complied with the Landscape Ordinance. The staff report said you wanted to reduce that -- Thomas: Yes. Borup: -- from 35 to 70 and now you're saying you want to eliminate it. Thomas: We are proposing right now at this point in time, just due to the cost implications of the irrigation and the landscaping and maintenance, we would like to propose a slatted fence, yes. Borup: Okay. Centers: On the north side. Thomas: On the north side yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 51 of 132 Centers: And the remainder of it -- are you talking landscaping or do you just want to fence it? Thomas: We were just going to fence it. Centers: Okay. Borup: So the remainder is adjoining Sanitary Services. Thomas: To the east is the barrier -- Jersey Barrier Storage facility. To the west is undeveloped agricultural, light industrial zone, and to the south, again, is another light industrial zone. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Thomas: My next issue is considering that -- I'd like a clarification on the sidewalk per the ACHD report. I believe their recommendations were to be on Findings for Consideration D, Item 2, on the sidewalk along Franklin. If Item Number 2 is to construct a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Linder Road in an easement -- easement on Linder Road does not adjoin the property and so I'm assuming that is Franklin Road in an easement. Centers: Are you reading from the ACHD -- Thomas: I am reading from the ACHD report. Borup: Which page? Thomas: Page 3 Item B-2.2. McKinnon: That should be Franklin Road. Centers: Yes it's Franklin. Thomas: Talking with Jensen Bell on this perimeter landscaping issue, if I can continue, we feel that the true obscurity of the 200-foot right of way from the -- between the right of way, the new property, and the existing residential areas, the best obscurity would be a fence with a slatted fence or trees. The shrubbery or the ground cover, really, I don't see does any obscuring opportunity for the site. That is the main reason we are proposing a slatted fence, in lieu of the landscaping. It would dumpish the impact of the bus facility and it would significantly help forward the cost of this site not getting classified as spending too much money for another school facility, which is cognizant of imposing unnecessary costs on a school facility that's a tax-based entity. With that said, the budget restraints of this facility are in question. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 52 of 132 Centers: Well, let's jump back to the sidewalk. You're saying you don't want to put a walk in. Thomas: On Franklin? Centers: Right. Thomas: We would prefer to not put a sidewalk in on Franklin at this time until that -- that whole future development is taken under. What is hoped -- what the plan is, is that will be platted in the future and with the access road built to allow access to those future developments. At that point in time put in all the landscape buffers to the ordinance requirements, the sidewalks, and everything else that goes along with that development. Centers: No harm in asking. Thomas: No harm in asking. Borup: Are there any sidewalks on either side of this project presently? Thomas: No, there is not. Borup: Okay. Centers: Good point. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Caparelli Subdivision directly to the east of this project does have a sidewalk that abuts the 50-foot right of way on the eastern side of the project. Borup: Okay. Thomas: That's the Sanitary Services corner. McKinnon: That's correct. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Sanitary Services was required on the large parcel, if they are to develop, they were required to build a five-foot wide sidewalk across their property. Borup: So there will be -- it's not there presently, but it will -- McKinnon: It's presently not there, but part of the requirement for them to build there -- their building there. Of course, they are developing right now and that would be the difference between what the applicant is requesting and what SSC is doing. SSC is – for Building Permits they would be required to, as part of their occupancy, be required to build that sidewalk. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 53 of 132 Borup: Okay go on, Mike. Thomas: Basically, that's what I have. What we would do, to continue on the perimeter landscaping, though, is we could -- we will leave those five-foot buffers for a future development and we could either put them in a dry land grass or a three-quarter inch minus gravel, just mainly to mitigate the irrigation requirement there. Dry land grass would not require irrigation, versus a wild grass or -- that does require irrigation. Centers: What can you tell us about the recycled asphalt? I have heard of this before. We had it on that automotive -- if you recall, Mr. Chairman. Why are you trying to go that way, other than expense? Thomas: Mainly it is an expense issue. What they are currently using -- the user is currently using at their current facility -- or bus facility is the recycled asphalt, in lieu of a gravel parking lot and what it is, is it basically is a mulch of asphalt and gravel and what they are finding that it is still fairly permeable in its first year or two. As it wears, it becomes denser and becomes more of a harder surface. They do come in and they do wear the stripes off of it. We will stripe this entire facility under the main base contract, but the school district comes in and stripes once or twice a year on their own accord, just so they can keep their bus drivers in line. It does hold a fairly good stripe for a year long, most likely. Borup: Is that re-rolled at that time or is the compaction enough? Thomas: The compaction usually is satisfactory just by the use of the vehicles driving on it. Centers: Do you have to bring more in every three or four years and redo it? Thomas: A little bit. The potholes are significantly lessened and you do have to patch it in. What we would do, though, is we don't rely much on permeability on the southern portion of the site, we will be -- which is the low sloping part of the site. We are picking up with catch basins prior to that asphalt perimeter drive, so we don't undermine our asphalt perimeter and, then, piping it to the drainage basin shown in the left-hand corner or the southwest corner. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have a question concerning the base that you have underneath it. Do you have any idea of the type of base that you would have underneath this mix? Thomas: We would put in an eight-inch roadway -- well, first, we estimated a 10-inch base depth for that gravel. With that said, with a two-inch asphalt base and an eight- inch gravel pit run base for the bus load. Borup: So it does have a normal -- well, that's above a normal base for a parking lot isn't it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 54 of 132 Thomas: That's what we are currently recommending right now. Borup: Yes because of the weight of the buses. Thomas: And the turning criteria on the buses fairly heavy. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner. Rohm: I'd like to return to the subject of the landscaping along the north line. Borup: Yes was there anything else in your presentation, Mr. Thomas? Thomas: The only thing that I have noticed from an aerial, if I may say so -- Borup: And, then, we will want to get back to some of these -- Thomas: Yes. The residential area on the other side of the railroad tracks, from the aerial and it appears to me -- and from the site visit out on the site, is that those are currently screened with solid fencing right now, all of the residential areas along there, so I just wanted to say that as well. Borup: Okay. Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Well, I was just going to speak to the sound level of the buses and what have you. If you had trees in addition to the fence along that north line, it seems that it would add an additional buffer to that existing subdivision to the north. I can see why you would want to eliminate the landscaping around this entire property, because it's rather significant, but the impact to that property to the north I think needs to be addressed. It seems appropriate that some deciduous trees or some sort of trees along that north line would be appropriate just to keep the noise level down for that subdivision. Zaremba: Well, I would add to the defense of trees that they also exchange pollution for oxygen, which, if you have a lot of vehicles warming up, I think we need some help there, too. Just an opinion. Centers: You weren't here the first time, were you? Thomas: No, sir. Centers: Yes. Borup: You missed the fun. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 55 of 132 Thomas: Thank you. I'm glad I did. Borup: Okay any other questions from the Commissioners at this point? Zaremba: Not at the moment, no. Borup: Okay. Thomas: Thank you. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Mrs. Atkinson, come on up. Atkinson: I'm Irma Atkinson. I live nowhere near this place anymore, but I live at 1124 North Lightning. I'm here representing my parents Wilbur and Eula Calnon, who live at 2155 West Franklin Road, which -- I have no clicker thing to point on. Oh. Wait. Wait. Okay over to the left. Okay yes that one. That one. They are two-acre lots where they have -- okay now, a brief history lesson. I will talk fast. Borup: Which parcel does the church own now? To the -- Atkinson: It's the little one to the right that my brother used to own. Borup: The church has that. Atkinson: He sold out. He got married, he sold out, he moved to Columbia Village. Please don't hold that against us. Okay there is one in every family. My cousin, Kathy Causca, is turning beet red and wishing she never volunteered to come with me. She's back from living in the east for 35 years? Somewhere like that. She's representing her father, Mark Calnon, who owns those other 77 acres. Right that big spot. Okay so a brief history lesson. There have been Calnon’s on that land since 1918. My parents ran Calnon Floral there for over 40 years. Kathleen's father, my Uncle Mark, farmed, he was a county agent for eternity and we did the thing about forgiving my brother. Okay. I have been here not to testify, but for other things, and having to sit through -- you know, the good news is there is not a standing room only crowd tonight right? Centers: Well, where is my sweater? Remember last time? Atkinson: Well, okay, now I know we have discussed this before, Commissioner Centers. Kathleen here, she raises Angora rabbits. She is the one to be talking to. Centers: Okay. Atkinson: And she has a knitting machine. I don't send any -- Centers: Yes. Okay. I didn't want to get you off the subject. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 56 of 132 Atkinson: Okay. Well, I'm so easily distractible, especially -- Centers: Yes. Atkinson: Especially after 9:00. Okay. That's why I write things down. Okay. We forgave my brother so yes there is not a standing room only crowd tonight. There are three things that I look at when I look at a development proposal, are the traffic, pedestrian safety, and minimizing the impact on the existing neighborhood so, quickly, we haven't really talked about the auto traffic bit. I didn't know until tonight and remember how many buses and how many cars. Holy cow. Okay. It is, what, 50 miles an hour on Franklin Road. I haven't had the chance to look at the ACHD letter or comments for them. I'm hoping that's going to change if you have 350 buses rolling out on there, but I certainly would want that addressed. It's a two-lane road. Borup: Well, the buses themselves will change it, because the cars will have to slow down for the buses. Atkinson: That's true but let's be pro-active, not reactive two-lane road, lots, and lots of traffic. I mean it gets backed up -- at 5:00 it will back up to mom and dad's driveway for the four way stop on Ten Mile and Franklin. I'm concerned -- is there a turning lane -- I really have a -- my big questions revolve around what's going to happen on Franklin Road. I think, you know, the -- the plan, which showed the back, the north part of the property, is great, but I want to know what's happening on Franklin Road. Is there going to be a turning lane into -- that's Fairview. Okay. You're just seeing if I was, you know, attending, weren't you? Okay so my questions are is there a right turning lane to -- on the north side to get into that property for those buses or will they be slowing down, you know, in the traffic lanes. Likewise, the ones that are eastbound, are there any accommodations, like a turning lane, or are we going to get backed up, you know, all the way to the four way stop at Ten Mile when we have buses come to turn left into that property? Those are my traffic questions. My pedestrian safety questions -- you know, I want to see the landscaping on Franklin. I want to see the sidewalk. I understand it's a financial challenge. However, I think it's only fair to other properties, including Sanitary Services -- I'm sticking up for them, that's really scaring me. Okay. I think it's only fair to the other properties, as they develop, that they are required to put in the sidewalk and the landscaping, that it be done here also. It could be 10 years before they develop that piece between the bus area and Franklin. I think it's only fair to pedestrians -- potential pedestrians to put in the landscaping and the sidewalks. Okay. Minimize the impact on the existing neighborhood. I will be the first to admit that the existing neighborhood may not be there that much longer. My parents are in their 80s, my uncle is in his 80s, although Kathleen's moved in now, she may be there forever. Okay so maybe that's changed but you know we are here to be advocates for our parents. You know, they have been good citizens for this community their names pop up in Lyle Hill's column every once in awhile. They have been quiet citizens and they have been productive citizens. My questions are where exactly is that drive into the property? Is it directly across from my mother's driveway? I don't want her scared to drive out of her property. You know, she doesn't need to feel trapped that she can't Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 57 of 132 leave her property, because there are 350 buses and the 10 garbage trucks coming out at her. I think Sanitary Services heard that loud and clear, but I have some concerns here. That just doesn't seem fair to the existing neighborhood. Questions? Centers: No but I would like the applicant to address what your comment -- and I think I see it in the ACHD report -- regarding kind of turn lanes, especially coming from the east and turning in. I think that's where most of the traffic might be coming from, is from the east. I could be wrong but I think the applicant will address that. I understand where you're coming from there. Atkinson: Okay. Centers: Thank you. Atkinson: Do you want to be next or -- you don't want to say a word. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify? Okay. Mr. Thomas. Thomas: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. In regards to the traffic -- traffic considerations, I guess I should say, we, in all hopes, would like to get a traffic light -- the School District would like to get a traffic light for this facility and we would personally like to get it in regards to the most easterly access road. However, meeting with ACHD, it doesn't even meet the quarter mile frontage distance from Linder Road, so our best hopes of getting a traffic light for that facility would be on the secondary access road in the future. That would be where the future developments would be, or, possibly, more light industrial properties, but that is our best hopes of getting a traffic light at that area. It's mainly due -- just due to the traffic distances of quarter mile, third mile, and that sort of thing. Centers: I thought the ACHD report on Page 4, under site-specific conditions of approval, might be addressing her concerns or any -- any motorist concerns on Franklin Road and I think it may. Are you able to extend the asphalt, so the buses can get over and -- you know? Thomas: Basically, our access roads will be developed to a 54-foot paved right of way. ACHD -- I think -- I interpreted ACHD's comments just saying that due to the fact that they are a private road, we do not have to construct to ACHD standards or any, way, shape or form. They are saying if you do it as a private road, we request that you pave the first 30 feet to keep gravel fodder from coming onto Franklin. Centers: Yes. The access. Thomas: Yes. Centers: But is -- I don't know if it's possible. Can you -- can you pave from their dedicated -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 58 of 132 Thomas: That is our intention, is we are dedicating -- Centers: So the buses can't -- coming from the east -- Thomas: We are -- Centers: Are they going to stack up in the middle of the road? Thomas: Yes, they will. There is no turning lane. There is -- Centers: You're not going to -- you can't construct a 12 or 14-foot turning lane of your own? You have a lot of frontage. Thomas: There is none proposed at this time, for the fact that we are going to have a traffic light in the future. There is -- and I think it is spelled out in the fact that ACHD doesn't -- doesn't have the -- it in their Comprehensive Plan to widen that road in any shape or form at this point in time. Borup: They will widen it to the east on -- it's logical to assume that it's going to be some day. Could you comment on the traffic routes of the buses, which direction most of them would be coming and going? Thomas: I could not. Basically, what the intention of this facility is, that's about as far as I can go, is they will leave for their routes in the morning, basically, I would assume they would try to take a right-hand turn with traffic, in lieu of crossing traffic. They would return after their routes in the morning and the policy and this facility's whole basic philosophy is to keep the bus drivers there. We are offering them a large administration building with a lounge, training room, training center, work center, that they would stay there the full period before their afternoon route, do their fueling, do their afternoon routes, do everything else, in lieu of taking their buses currently home, as they somehow do now in between their routes. They -- you know, they are trying to mitigate that whole liability issue. Centers: So you're not going to allow that? You're not going to allow them to take them home. Thomas: No. No. That will mitigate that entire thing. They will come back to the site and stay there for the full term until the afternoon route and, then, return and, granted, they will not be returning all at once, because I'm sure the routes have different time sequences. Borup: That was my other question. How often are buses coming in one directly behind another? Thomas: The school district could probably answer that better than I -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 59 of 132 Borup: Okay. Thomas: I just would like to say that currently right now this is the maximum build out of this facility. They currently won't have 350 buses -- Borup: Right. Thomas: -- when they first come on line. Centers: I think it's 150 now or 200. Thomas: About 200. Borup: Yes. That might be good to get some other questions answered. Bigham: Wendel Bigham, Meridian School District, 911 Pine Street, Meridian, Idaho. I'll stand for your questions. I would like to clarify a couple points. It is our desire to have the buses return to the facility during the daytime to get them off of the right of way and all the driveways they are parked in around the valley. Generally, the buses go out and back twice a day. They go out in the morning, they come back late morning, and then, they go out early afternoon and come back. Borup: That was one of my questions also was the times. Bigham: Anytime after about 6:30 in the morning you will see the buses starting to go out. This site is advantageous to us, just as the previously unsuccessful site was. Our routes are shifting to the west. As the subdivisions become more and more developed to the east, as we butt up against Boise, more and more people walk to school and the schools are built into those areas so our routes are shifting to the west. Over time the majority of our traffic will move out of this facility with a right-hand turn to go west on Franklin. Today if you ask me, I'd tell you it's 50-50, I really don't know, but those routes do seem to be shifting to the west for us. Again, the accessibility to any future Ten Mile interchanges is very advantageous to our north-south connection to the -- Borup: And the return time? Bigham: Anytime after 3:30 to 4:30, pretty much. I mean if you think about when your children get home from school and get off the bus, you know, the buses tend to go back and -- Borup: So the majority of them would be in by 4:30? Bigham: That's a very fair assumption. Borup: Before the real traffic starts. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 60 of 132 Bigham: Because we looked at the traffic study, the information in trying to determine this -- we are kind of an off-peak user, we kind of go before the world gets busy and we tend to come back before the world gets busy in the afternoon. Arguably, 350 buses is a lot of traffic. Arguably, one may maintain that more trips could be generated if you had three houses per acre on 40 acres worth of land. You could maybe generate more vehicle trips, if you will, on a daily basis in this type of facility. It does not operate on weekends, with the exception of the odd school bus, athletic bus. Its activity during the three months during the summer is reduced by -- pick a number -- 90 plus percent, because the traditional school calendar is off during the summer. You need to think of its operation much more like a school, if you will. The other clarification I would like to just make is it's a public facility and the school district is a public entity, but the public is not invited into the facility. It is truly a maintenance yard for the school district, other than the auto parts store delivering parts it's highly, highly unlikely that there would be any public wanting to come into that. The basis of that discussion is really, you know, the paved parking lot versus the gravel surface. It's a big chunk of money to pave 20 acres. You can quickly hit a million dollars just in asphalt like that without ever dealing with the added cost of additional drainage so it is a big parking lot. We have found that we have had great success with the recycled asphalt in terms of its maintainability and it's somewhat permeable, at least initially. Yes, that also speaks to the -- if you will, the landscaping requirements that we are somewhat concerned with on the interior of the property. It's not a destination for anyone, except the bus driver or mechanics. Borup: That is rolled is that correct? When it goes down? Bigham: The ones I have seen, yes. You spread it out much the way you would a six inch leveling coarse, four inch leveling coarse under a concrete slab, it's graded out and you roll it and you generally water it and it starts setting up from there. Borup: Yes. Bigham: It's not quite like roller compacted concrete, but it's pretty close. Borup: No. No. I understand. I have been on straight road mix that's been rolled and when it's new, it feels like pavement, but -- Centers: You know, what bothers me is those buses and the traffic in the afternoon, but I think it could be remedied. I don't know if we can require it or the Council, but if the buses -- the bus drivers were all required to enter from the east and make a right turn, then, they'd just zip right in. If they are coming from the west and have a turn signal on and traffic is not allowing them to turn left, they are going to start stacking up and I think you will be the first to admit, a lot of them are going to returning at the same time. Bigham: Absolutely. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 61 of 132 Centers: So if they were required to come from the east and just turn right, they are just going to zip right in. I don't know if we can do that, but if there is no turn lane, they are going to stack up if they are coming from the west. Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I don't know if you could place that condition on us. I don't know that we would accept it. I just don't have a real good feel about that. Borup: This is a Conditional Use Permit. Bigham: The reality is we are advocating a stoplight at our western driveway. Centers: Yes but you don't have it. Bigham: We do not have it and that was the third point I wanted to clarify. We are buying land -- much more land, approximately eight acres is the amount of land that was in question with the flag lot on the western side. Our intention is to be back here before you very, very shortly with a plat. We are not developers and we have no business speculating in the land market, we are simply being forced to buy this amount of land to meet our bus parking. Our goal will be to get that platted in conjunction with Sanitary Services, so they can carve off their future Western Recycling lot that you were looking at. You will be seeing a joint plat from both of us and we will be trying to sell those lots or trade that property immediately, because the investment in those dollars is not in the highest and best use for the students of the district to be tied up in industrial land. With that, we will be building that western road. We fully expect that road to be a condition of the plat we expect all of the improvements, the setbacks and everything, to be a condition of that plat for the improvements of Franklin Road. At that time, we are hopeful that -- not hopeful, I would fully anticipate being required by ACHD to widen that road to a turn lane, probably acceleration, deceleration lanes, and the whole nine yards to accomplish that. Centers: And that's all speculation. In other words, you're saying that the school district acquired some additional land that you really didn't want, but you had to take it in order to get what you wanted and now you're going to re-plat it and try and sell it off to the general public. Bigham: That is correct. Centers: Okay because the owner of the land wouldn't sell part of it, he says you take it all or none. Then, you decided, well, we can re-plat some of this other -- okay. It sounds like you did get into the real estate business to me. Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners Centers, beggars can't be choosers. Centers: Okay. I guess that's a fair statement. Well, I guess whether we could require access from the east, I don't know. I would recommend that to the City Council, if they Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 62 of 132 can do it and then -- because I can see traffic stacking up coming from the west. You can, too. In the future you might have a signal, you might sell those lots if the buyers come along and -- but until then, that's going to stack up from -- clear to Ten Mile, I would bet, with -- what are those buses, 30-foot? Bigham: Forty. Centers: Forty. Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I would advocate that the buses do move with traffic speeds. We do not speed, but we do move with the traffic speeds and I would have the same concern about stacking at the lighted interchange at Linder and Franklin Road if the decision was passed down that all traffic must come from the east, one may create a nightmare. The thing that we are -- Centers: They will be able to return right in, though. Bigham: But at the lighted intersection we will be having buses stacked up every direction you can think of at that intersection. The thing we don't -- we are going to route our buses to get them off the street. They are going to come from all directions, I need say that, but we will route them in a way that gets them in there efficiently. We are advocating that Franklin be widen to its designed width, even if it's not in Ada County's five year work plan, our intentions would be to hold our setbacks back for any future right of way that they may want or desire, but can't currently acquire we are trying to do that. We are advocating the widening of Franklin and with that will come, probably, a reduction in the speed to 35 miles an hour would be my guess. Zaremba: Well, I would think not only the right of way, but also the acceleration and deceleration lane in addition to that -- Borup: For the setbacks if they are leaving them. Zaremba: I would feel that the existence of that should be a condition of this going in there, though. That has to come first. Bigham: Mr. Chairman, Commission Zaremba, I'm not sure what right of way ACHD has to the east of our eastern driveway in front of the Caparelli Subdivision, don't know the -- even if we all wanted to do it, if the right of way exists for us to be forced to put a taper in there, if you will. To east of our -- excuse me -- to the west of our eastern driveway, any widening conditions that would be expected in there probably should be incumbent upon Sanitary Services, since they are the frontage property there. When we get to our western driveway, any approaches to the west from our western driveway should absolutely be placed upon the school district to do that. We would be advocating to do that, since we are going to put the curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping in, let's bring the street out to it in a correct fashion, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 63 of 132 Borup: Any comments on -- I think Commissioner Rohm made some comments on the trees. Zaremba: I'm in favor of having as many trees as we can get along the northern border. I'm not that stuck on having more on the other borders. Centers: Yes I'm the same way. We didn't have anyone else here, Mr. Chairman? Borup: Not from that subdivision. Centers: Yes. Borup: I mean there is a 200-foot railroad easement through there and that may be part of the non-interest, there is a good separation. Zaremba: Well -- and I -- I have a question that gives me a little bit of difficulty here. When we were talking about this facility in the previously proposed location, this is probably the exact kind of site I was hoping it would move to, instead of being in the other place. I think this is a good, all-around choice, and a good design with some things that can be adjusted here and there. My difficulty is not with the facility, but with the zone that it's being put in. My direction is to see if we can change the zone, not the facility. An industrial light zone is for quiet businesses, totally contained within a building. That's the definition of it. Centers: That hasn't been finalized yet. Zaremba: No. That's already in the -- Centers: Is it? Borup: It's already zoned. Zaremba: What we were talking about doing at other times were definitions in a different chapter than -- Centers: Okay. Zaremba: -- that didn't include that and that needed to be added. The difficulty is we do not have a definition for a real industrial zone. Heavy industrial. This, to me, is a heavy industrial use. I think it's appropriate in that location. The problem is we don't have in existence the zone that this should really be. The reason that that gives me difficulty is that I don't want future applicants to feel comfortable that they can put heavy machinery, heavy trucks, and heavy buses into any I-L zone. It's not the intent of the I-L zone, industrial light zone, to have heavy vehicles coming into it. I feel like I'd like to have this facility exactly where it's being proposed, but I don't like that zone designation, precisely because it opens up -- it's exactly the reason that we refused it in its previous Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 64 of 132 location, it was being proposed as an I-L zone and we said this is heavy industrial. I'm not wanting to expand the definition of light industrial to include what are clearly heavy uses so my question is what can we do to change the zoning? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, let me address a couple of those comments. You stated correctly that we currently do not have a heavy industrial zone and if I could direct your attention to the Meridian City Code 11-8-1, often referred to as the schedule of use control, which is kind of an odd way of saying what's allowed and what's not allowed in certain zones. Because of the fact that we do not currently have a heavy industrial zoning designation, nor do we have a definition that would go along with that, the City Council has adopted a schedule of use control that says what certain types of uses would be allowed in specific zones. Although the definition does not correlate specifically to all the uses that are permitted in Conditional Uses in the industrial zone, the requested use that we have tonight, according to the schedule of use control found in the Zoning Ordinance, is a Conditional Use in that zone. It may not meet -- Zaremba: It's a Conditional Use and I'm looking at the chart. I know what you're referring to I have it open in front of me. McKinnon: Right and because of the fact we do not have a heavy industrial zone, we have nothing that we can play that off of. The discussion would be that we should adopt a new zoning designation and we are in the process of adopting a new definition for a Heavy Industrial Ordinance as we discussed a month ago. We would need to have a definition, plus, we would need to have a heavy industrial added to that. At this time we have no other zoning designation where this type of use would be allowed and this is the best appropriate zone for this use at this time, because we do not have the other zone that you speak of at this time. Borup: And the Comp Plan lists it just as industrial. Zaremba: Well, as I say, I don't have a problem with the facility being exactly where it's being proposed. The difficulty I have is with calling it light industrial and thereby expanding the definition of light industrial where it might be used other places. Centers: Well, that's why they have -- Zaremba: If it's referred to only as industrial, it doesn't -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I believe that that expansion took place at the time that they -- that they adopted the schedule of use control allowing all those separate uses to be either permitted or Conditional Uses. Centers: And that's why they have to go for a CUP. McKinnon: That's correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 65 of 132 Centers: Exactly so we are not opening up a Pandora's Box Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: Commissioner Zaremba, the next guy would have to get a CUP, too. McKinnon: Commissioner Zaremba, we will get you that industrial zone. I promise. We will get it for you. Zaremba: We have got to fix these charts and make Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 agree with each other. McKinnon: Commissioner Centers -- Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, could I just address a couple things that have been brought up tonight? One concerning the slow down lane or the acceleration and deceleration lanes and turn lanes? We got ACHD's report and ACHD's report has said that we want a 96-foot road here in the future. The right of way is 96 feet and they would like to have 48 feet dedicated from centerline for this entire project. That has no assumption for an acceleration or deceleration lane. However, that five lane roadway that they would like to have here would have the center turn lane for these buses that would be making the left-hand turn when they come in from the western direction, west to east. ACHD has been forced to adopt a fiscally constrained capital improvement program where they have said here is everything we have got for 20 years, this is the money that we can spend. They have, in fact, shortened that down to saying if it's in the five year work program we can fiscally -- we can give you money for it and if we don't have the money for it, what we can do is go ahead and give you some impact fee offsets. This section of Franklin is not in the 20-year work program, it's not in the five year, and so it's going to be a number of years before we see this actually take any action for any expansion. Even with the expansion, it does not give any language for an acceleration or deceleration lane. Those acceleration lanes or deceleration lanes that Wendel brought up earlier tonight that he thinks would probably take place, would have to be an improvement onto SSC's property, because ACHD does not have the money to purchase that land from SSC right now. Any acceleration or deceleration lane would not be part of ACHD's improvements, but improvements on SSC's property. We do not have the authority to require those acceleration and deceleration lanes on that property. If I could jump to the landscaping issue. There has been a lot of discussion tonight how we have a tax entity and an entity that should be given a break from the City Ordinances and be allowed to not meet the requirements of the ordinance. As you will note in Brad's comments under the special considerations, any alteration to that should require a Variance and should be approved by the Council. It sounds like the direction that we are going to go tonight is to require the trees on the northern boundary, but go with some fencing around the rest of the project and, you know, that's one thing -- that's one way you could look at it. Another way it could be looked at is that those agencies, such as school districts and City of Meridian, other agencies that are supported by tax dollars, should actually be setting the example, rather than saying we want to be excluded from those things that would beautify the city so there are two ways of looking Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 66 of 132 at it. I wouldn't suggest either as better than the other, but I do believe, still, that the landscaping along the north adjacent to the residential, although there is a 20-foot buffer between the two, would be appropriate. That's really all that I had to add to those comments. Centers: I totally agree and I was just looking -- this is not totally relevant, but it -- I'm pleased to see the school district didn't lay out the dollars and buy this property ahead of time. Ronald Van Auker is the present owner and has given his statement to go ahead and proceed. Correct? Zaremba: Well, I would chime in on the landscaping that I agree setting the example is good. The landscaping is attractive, but in most cases that's not the entire purpose of it. It's a nice result that it's attractive, but its primary purpose is as a sound buffer, as a pollution absorber, grass and trees and bushes exchange a lot of air for us. The biggest reason for them existing is what they give back to us in mitigating pollution and in absorbing sounds. It's a nice benefit that they are pretty, but that's not really the point of having them there and I'm not too excited about giving it up. Centers: Which part? Borup: All of it or -- Centers: Yes. Zaremba: Well, I'm not really exited about giving up any of it. I could be talked into not having trees along the eastern and western and southern boundary, but other landscaping that wants to be there and I think all the trees need to be along the north boundary. Just an opinion. Centers: I'd like to move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Centers: Yes. I'm in -- well, 100 percent agreement with Commissioner Zaremba and I think Commissioner Rohm. I think we need full compliance with the city's landscaping requirements. Borup: You're differing from the staff recommendation? Centers: No. Staff is recommending perimeter landscaping. Borup: Well, they recommend -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 67 of 132 Centers: In special considerations they are and I would make that part of our requirements. I think -- Borup: I thought they recommended a reduction? Centers: No. In special considerations they are talking about we need to consider that, because if we don't, if we allow them not to have the -- Borup: Oh. They supported a decrease. Staff supports a decrease. Zaremba: Half the trees. Borup: Right. Centers: Right. Zaremba: The normal landscaping, but half the trees. Centers: Right. Borup: Yes. That's what I meant. Zaremba: And the applicant is now asking to go even farther than that. Centers: Right because I agree with Mr. McKinnon, it's -- you know, the applicant's presenter talks about the tax dollars and preying on our conscience to save money, but I -- you know -- and I'm all for saving money, but I have seen a lot of money wasted on previous site acquisitions that didn't come to play. There was a lot of waste in that case and other situations with the school district. Borup: You're still bothered by the Pine Street thing. Centers: That house is still sitting there and owned by the school district still sitting there. They bought it before they could even determine if they could use it for that use and, then, they made application for a bus facility at -- out off of -- well, I was here. What street was it on? Borup: Ten Mile. Centers: Because I'm sure there was a lot of expense gone to promote that location with no success. Then, they want us to cut corners for this facility. I don't -- I don't concur. I don't think we should cut corners anyway. I agree with the recycled asphalt. I don't have any problem with that. The Franklin Road landscape buffer, I don't have any problem with them not doing that now. I think that makes sense. I think they should put in the sidewalk, because we have got sidewalks on both sides. That's mine. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 68 of 132 Zaremba: And I'm not sure, except maybe in the short run that leaving out the trees would save money. If the quantity of exhaust that 350 buses can put out coming and going four times a day, leaving twice, returning twice, warming up and sitting there, if that quantity were to go up one chimney, one smoke stack, the EPA would have a lot of requirements about mitigating the effect on the atmosphere. The trees help with that. Centers: I agree. Zaremba: The EPA is beginning to go around and micro manage individual vehicle pollution. They have gone beyond the smoke stacks now and they could show up at a facility like this and say you have to put a dome over it and contain everything in it. I think having trees would -- would help stop that. I think we must take measures to do that so I'm on the side of trees. How about sidewalks? Centers: I have told you my opinion. Zaremba: Yes I feel we should have the sidewalks. Is that what you have -- I forgot. Centers: Yes. Borup: Well, yes, let's discuss where we are talking on sidewalks, then. Right now you're talking on the undeveloped section, that they are going to come in with a future plat? Zaremba: Well, we require that as -- certainly residential developers and all other developers, that they do all of the perimeter landscaping. Borup: I'm talking about the sidewalk. Centers: Well, per ACHD report, is the way staff puts it, along Franklin Road. Staff is okay with B-2.1 or B-2.2. I think that was on Page 4 of the report. Borup: Well, I'm just saying one option may be to do the sidewalk from their access road to Sanitary Service's site and if we are not going to require anything on the property to the west that the sidewalk could be done when that project is presented. Will we see the -- we will see the platting back here, won't we? McKinnon: Yes we will see the platting. Borup: I don't know if that makes a lot of difference. Zaremba: And not on the other parcel. Centers: Yes I would agree with that. Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 69 of 132 Borup: So it would be from their access road clear to -- Centers: SDI or -- Borup: SSI sidewalk so that would be continuous. I'm not sure where the Commissioners were discussing -- or end up going on -- well, all three items have been listed under special considerations. One is the Franklin Road landscape buffer. They are requesting it be delayed until a later date. Centers: Right. Borup: Staff recommends that a time frame should be part of the motion. Zaremba: If that was -- Borup: The way we desired to go. On the perimeter landscaping, it would require a Variance to the City Council, no matter which -- no matter what this Commission recommended, they still need to apply for the Variance. I think we can put our recommendation down also. Centers: Well, no, if we required the landscaping, there wouldn't be a Variance needed. Borup: That's true. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, regardless of the motion you make on that tonight, Mr. Bigham and the school district has the opportunity to make a request for a Variance to eliminate all of it. Centers: Oh, yes. McKinnon: But I just wanted to make sure that Wendel is aware of that. Okay. Borup: If we are talking -- well, which way are we leaning? It sounds like right now the trees every 70 feet on the northern boundary or are we talking different than that? Centers: I'd like them every 35. Zaremba: I'd like the 35 on the northern boundary. Centers: Per the ordinance. Borup: And, then, how about other landscaping? If they put a solid slatted fence on there, is there any need for trees -- or grass and shrubs in that area, too? It's going to be obscured by the fence, other than from the bus driver's view. Centers: Well, I think Commissioner Zaremba makes a good point and Commissioner Rohm, the more trees the better for the noise. It will absorb the noise. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 70 of 132 Borup: No. The Landscape Plan also shows low -- low shrubs and grass in that area. Zaremba: I think all of those help. Borup: I don't know if it shows grass, but it shows something. Ornamental ground -- shrubs and ground cover is what it says here. Other than -- other than -- well, it's not -- those are not a screening feature if we already have a sight obstructive fence. Centers: Are you talking the north? Borup: Yes I'm talking the north. Centers: You know, I'd like to see -- Borup: They are having a solid -- they are proposing a solid fence there, a sight obstructing slatted chain link. Centers: In lieu of the trees and landscaping? Borup: Well, that was what they were saying. We still have -- I guess I was assuming the slatted fence would stay and the trees could stay and shrubs and grass could go. Centers: Yes. I'm not -- I don't fence, because I'm looking at the railroad right of way and it's 200 feet to the neighborhood. They may want the fence for security reasons. I don't know. I think you can have a fence on -- they want the fence on three sides, don't they? Borup: Yes. They are planning on -- Thomas: All four sides regardless. Centers: Regardless. Right. Borup: Yes and north is going to be slatted, sight obstructing. Centers: And which it doesn't have to be, really, if you're having landscaping and the trees, because the railroad right of way is 200 feet. Borup: Well, the trees aren't going to -- even every 35 feet are not going to be a sight- obstructing perimeter. Centers: Okay. Just make them do the -- Zaremba: Different issue. Did we discuss at anytime where their western access road is in relation to the house across the street? Did we get that answered? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 71 of 132 Borup: It's on the property. I don't know where the house on the property is. Probably, the map on -- the one that comes with the ACHD report shows all properties in relation to each other very well. It shows the entire -- yes. About where he was pointing there, it looks like. It looks like it's close to their western property line. Did you see that, Commissioner Zaremba? Zaremba: Yes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I have a question for staff. What is the zone where the current facility is? McKinnon: The current facility is zoned I-L. It's down further off of Franklin, if you were to go down -- Zaremba: I know where it is, off of -- McKinnon: It's zoned I-L. Zaremba: I'm just asking what the zone is there. McKinnon: I-L. I wasn't sure if everybody else knew. Zaremba: You're hurting me. Borup: Well, there is no other zoning that would be appropriate at this point. Zaremba: It's not manufacturing. It's not commercial. It's not their fault it's our ordinance that's a little bit screwy to me. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to -- are we ready to discuss a motion? Centers: Yes the Landscape Plan shows trees every 35 feet correct? Borup: Right. McKinnon: Yes. Centers: And the Landscape Plan is showing grass and -- or bark materials or small shrubs, which is required, Dave? Okay. It's not. I can tell by your -- McKinnon: It sure is encouraged. We'd like to see something other than perma bark and, you know, the bark in and of itself is just placed there, it doesn't do a whole lot. Is it required per se? No. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 72 of 132 Centers: Well, you know, where it's at and it's going to be high maintenance, you know, I would like to require the trees every 35 feet and leave it at that. All the way around. Borup: Except for on Franklin Road. Centers: Exactly. Except for on Franklin Road. Borup: I mean I don't see a lot of sense in landscaping between the bus parking and Sanitary Services truck parking, which is the way it's shown now. Centers: Right. Borup: You know, that doesn't make -- that doesn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps it may need something against a future property to be developed, but that could be handled when that plat comes forward, too, I think. If we allow for full landscaping, whether it's now or in the future on Franklin, that's what the public is going to see. Centers: I can develop a motion here. Let's see if I can get some support. We got to move on. Borup: Yes. Centers: I would like to recommend approval to the City Council for Item Number 7 on our Agenda CUP 02-046, request for Conditional Use Permit for a bus facility in an I-L zone for Joint School District No. 2 by Joint School District No. 2, at 2170 West Franklin Road, including all staff comments. In addition, the Landscape Plan can be altered or should be altered to include trees every 35 feet that surround the applicant's use, excluding the parcel that is intended to be occupied by SSI. The landscaping fronting on Franklin Road shall be as submitted. Fencing -- applicant has indicated that fencing shall surround the property and at the north side they will include lattice or a shield type fence. That's all we had, isn't it? In other words, our -- do you know where I’m at on that -- every 35 feet on those trees? Borup: Well, that's what's submitted now, but I'm not sure -- and, then, this is -- Centers: I will give the drawing to the -- this is what we are -- Borup: Essentially, you're saying along three sides of the property, then? Centers: Yes like this, Mr. Chairman, and I will give this to the attorney. Borup: Well, this is, actually, the property that -- Centers: Okay see, this is the SSI. They don't have to go around there do the normal on Franklin Road go right around with your trees, down to the SSI property. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 73 of 132 Borup: Actually, no. I think their property is to the north of that where you see those trees. That property is the undeveloped you're looking at there. Flip over to the next page. Centers: So SSI is down here. Borup: Off that plat right. Well, I'm a little confused on that. Is there some vacant property between SSI and the bus barn -- I mean the -- Centers: Where is SSI? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is some land that's not being developed right now by SSC. They intend to expand in the future. Borup: Okay that 330 by 282 is just their present and they are retaining ownership of the other? McKinnon: They are retaining ownership of both of those large parcels at this time and they are developing the property that's to the north of the smaller parcel and to the east of that smaller parcel. They intend on either redeveloping that smaller parcel in the future or -- Borup: Okay so the smaller parcel is not even being developed at this point? McKinnon: That's correct. That's the parcel that's not being developed. Centers: And that will be given to staff. The little master drawing will be given to staff for the proposed landscaping end of motion. Rohm: I will second that. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, before you take action on that, did that include any recommendation for allowing recycled asphalt? Centers: I think we agreed that the asphalt was fine. McKinnon: Okay. Centers: That would be part of my motion. McKinnon: Thank you. Centers: The proposed asphalt. It's not asphalt. It's ground up asphalt. That's fine. McKinnon: Thank you. Was there a second? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 74 of 132 Rohm: Yes. I seconded it. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: We will take a short break at this time. (Recess at 10:10 P.M.) (Reconvened at 10:27 P.M.) Item 8. Public Hearing: AZ 02-027 Request for zoning boundary modification of R-40 and C-C zones on 11.76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Item 9. Public Hearing: PP 02-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 74 building lots and 11 other lots on 11.76 acres in proposed R-40 and C-C zones for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 02-041 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 74 townhouses and 2 office/commercial lots on 11.76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. We are ready to reconvene our Planning and Zoning meeting so we will start -- hello, Commissioners. Item Numbers 8, 9, and 10, Public Hearing AZ 02-027, request for zoning boundary modification of R-40 and C-Z on 11.76 acres for the proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision. Along with that is PP 02-026, preliminary -- or request for Preliminary Plat approval for 74 building lots and 11 other lots on the same property and CUP 02-041, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 74 townhouses and two office commercial lots, again, on the same property. We'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This project might sound a little familiar to you, again, since it is pretty much the second one that you have seen before. Originally, when this application came in front of you, it wasn't an application for attached single-family dwellings it was an application for 180 apartments with six commercial lots on the area that's highlighted on the overhead in front of you. Locust Grove Road is running north and south. The property that fronts onto it is approximately a quarter mile south of Franklin -- or Fairview Avenue. The property runs Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 75 of 132 adjacent the Jackson Drain and, accordingly, when the apartment complex was approved there was a requirement for them to build a pathway adjacent to the Franklin -- adjacent to the Jackson Drain. Boy, my brain is off. With that project there was a few items that were discussed that need to be brought up tonight and I will go ahead and jump right into the item I think tonight is going to be one of the bigger items of discussion. As you can see within the subdivision to the south of this project, there is a stub street. It comes into the southern portion of the property the northern terminus of the stub street ends right there. The applicant has not proposed to extend that stub street into the project tonight, for the reason being that the project itself will all have private streets on the interior of this subdivision. The private streets were proposed by the applicant, because ACHD wanted to have 50-foot right of ways on the interior of the project. The applicant decided that they would like to have skinny streets, the 29-foot street sections, rather than having the 29-foot street sections and a 50-foot right of way, which would have really impacted their project, they decided that they would go all with private streets. For that reason they don't want to connect the stub street into their project, because it would be connecting a public street to a private to, again, then, connect to another public street. On Pages 3 and 4 of ACHD’s, staff report. At the bottom of Page 3 and the top of Page 4 of ACHD's staff report, there is a discussion by the ACHD staff coming to an agreement stating that ACHD would -- although it's not in accordance with their requirements, they would allow them to have the private streets there and not connect Scrivner. If you haven't had a chance to take a look at that, I really encourage you to take a look at that before you make a motion tonight. In the staff report, Wendy, our new planner, this is her first shot at a staff report out here in Meridian, she has made mention that she would like to see Scrivner Avenue extended into the property in the future. Part of the justification at the last meeting for this project and the reason why it was not required in the original approval when it came through as an apartment, was that the neighbors from the south, the subdivision, did not want it to connect, because it was connect -- it would have connected to commercial property. Now, it does connect to single-family residential, but it would connect to a private street. If we can go to the next slide, you can see how they have addressed that. They have placed just a small -- actually, it's not that small, it's a 30-foot wide common lot with a pathway that would connect the two subdivisions. Another reason for not wanting to connect two roads, as you can see, there is a very short distance from where it would connect out to Locust Grove, so if their subdivision became busy, they would use this as a cut through and the applicant would not like -- would rather not have the cut through with this project. Originally, as approved, this project has six commercial lots. As you can see on the Site Plan that's been submitted that's in front of you tonight, they have reduced that to two lots of commercial. It's basically been a reduction from two point some odd acres of commercial down to .74 acres of commercial. The lots that they are proposing now are 1,600 square feet or 1,700 square feet, approximately, and 15,000 square feet in size. This is a Planned Development. They have requested some reduced setbacks and I'll jump to Page 2 of the staff report and just go over a little bit of the setback requirements that they have asked for some reductions to. One of the first setbacks is some city requirements for a front setback of 20-foot and applicant has requested an 18.5-foot front setback or 20 feet from the back of sidewalk. The 18.5 feet does not -- is not something that would concern us as staff, because we would prefer -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 76 of 132 what we are really looking for is that 20 feet from sidewalk to the garage. You don't want to have vehicles parking in the driveway overhanging into the sidewalk so, the 20 feet is the more important, rather than the 18.5, to the staff. The rear setback of 15 feet is a city requirement. The applicant has proposed on the western boundary, the area I have highlighted, to be able to allow this section of property to be allowed to drop to the 13-foot rear setback. Unfortunately, Section 12-6-2A.5 of the Planned Development Ordinance does not allow reductions of setbacks on the periphery of a Planned Development. Setbacks and other dimensions within a Planned Development can be reduced everywhere except along the periphery. They want Planned Developments to impact themselves, rather than impact the properties that surround them. The 13-foot is non-negotiable, according to the ordinance, unless there was a Variance that was requested for that. Side setbacks, the applicant has proposed zero to five. Staff has no problem with that and the street size. Staff has no problem with that -- with the street size that has been requested. R-40 does not have minimum lot size. The applicant has proposed a 3,600 square foot minimum lot size and staff is in agreement with that and the lot frontage, there is none that is required by the City of Meridian for these lots. However, the applicant has proposed a 40-foot and we are more than happy to agree with that. If I can direct your attention to Page 3, we go into the annexation and zoning analysis. I have just one thing highlighted in this section to discuss with you. It would be under Subsection A, the finding that deals with whether or not the new zoning is harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Wendy noted that on the Comprehensive Plan, this property is entirely high density residential in the new Comprehensive Plan, without any commercial. When the property was originally approved, this was as a mixed-use zone, which would have allowed for the mixed uses. Because the existing property is already zoned C-C and they are decreasing the amount of nonconformance with the Comprehensive Plan, staff does not disagree with what the applicant is proposing. We do find that it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan by bringing it into more compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. I'm going to skip through the rest of the comments concerning the annexation and zoning until we get to the site-specific comments on Page 6, Item Number 2. She -- Wendy has pointed out, correctly I might add, that the minimum lot area of a C-C zone - - for a lot in a C-C zoning is eight acres and the proposed rezone does not meet this dimensional requirement. This is not to say that the staff disagrees with what the applicant has proposed, but, rather, to point out to you that there is a discrepancy in our Zoning Ordinance from what has been applied for by the applicant. My understanding is that the legislative intent of saying eight acres was so that you have a large block of a C-C, something like Fred Meyers to the northeast, as for C-C, it would be a community - - commercial center. Because it's already zoned C-C, the lots are already in existence, we don't have any objection to that, and that's more for informational purposes, rather than any type of suggestion for denial. If I could get you to drop to the bottom of Page 6 under the additional considerations. This is where Wendy has addressed the issue of Scrivner Avenue connecting to this -- connecting to the street right here that we talked about just at the beginning of the application. She gives some justification for that by saying that when this development was originally approved and the stub street from Scrivner was originally, you know, not required, this project was drastically different. It was, essentially, a stub street into a high residential, 180-apartment unit complex, with Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 77 of 132 commercial property. At that time members from that development, like I said, the development to the south came and said we don't want to have any connection. I don't know if there is anyone here tonight that would be there -- would be here to talk about that, but I know that the applicant has some information that he'd like to present to you tonight to further that discussion. Site-Specific Comment Number 1 on the Preliminary Plat is, again, the Scrivner Avenue issue. Item Number 2 under the site-specific comments addresses the requirement for a 15-foot buffer. It's in the Landscape Ordinance that would require, actually, a 20-foot buffer behind the office commercial uses and the adjoining residential uses. In the Landscape Ordinance, there is the requirement that between the different types of uses there is a requirement for the buffer and that you are required to put that on the property at the time of development. Please keep in mind that this is a Planned Development and should the applicant request a reduction in that, that that would be within the guidelines of the Planned Development Ordinance. It was not requested. However, it is something that is available to allow that to be reduced, because of the fact this is part of a Planned Development. You will note that there is no Item Number 3. If you could skip to Number 4, which, actually, be Item Number 3. The Meridian Fire Department has recommended that parking be allowed only on side of the subdivision streets. Again, this is a 29-foot street section road. The Fire Department typically requires a 20-foot wide access drive. If parking were to be allowed on both sides of the street, they wouldn't be able to get a fire truck through that. The applicant I know is ready to address that issue tonight. Item Number 5, a Cross-Access Agreement, will be required between the two. There currently is no Cross-Access Agreement. The properties that front onto Locust Grove do not actually have any access to Locust Grove. They will be accessed off of the road that comes in on the north part of the boundary, so, essentially, this parcel would be landlocked -- the commercial property to the south would be landlocked without a Cross-Access Agreement with the commercial property to the north. Item Number 6 this is going to bring us back down to the Scrivner Avenue discussion one more time. It has to deal with the applicant's request that Lot 41, that's the lot that's on the eastern boundary of the pedestrian pathway that they be allowed to not have any side setback and they be allowed to build their home right up next to that property line. Wendy has noted in her site-specific comments that they should not be allowed to go build right to that, that they should meet the five-foot setback from property line on that site -- on that side yard setback. Detailed fencing. There are no real issues with that until we get to the Final Plat. We get down to Item Number 8 and there are a number of notes there. There is really nothing that makes a large impact onto the property, so we will go through that, we will turn to Page 8, and there are another couple of items that I'd like to point out to you that are of importance for this application. Beginning with the mis-numbered Number 5, they shall construct a micropath providing connectivity between Locust View Streets. That is the street that's on the northern boundary of this property. They have provided -- the applicant has provided a pathway along the Jackson Drain. However, the only access point to that pathway is off of Locust Grove. There are no internal access points, other than small open spaces here and here surrounding these two properties. What Wendy is suggesting in that comment -- in the staff comments that they reconfigure, so that there can be a pathway that can be built between those two lots to provide internal Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 78 of 132 connection to the pathway that's supposed to service this project. Looking through to see if there is anything else that needed to be brought to your attention in the Preliminary Plat and I don't see any other site-specific comments that play of major importance that I want to bring to your attention specifically at this time. Turn to page -- Bruce wants me to just touch shortly for just a second for clarification's sake that the Jackson Drain is intended to remain open and the city will allow it to remain open. That's intended to be an amenity for the city, since there is a pathway there, and we don't want them to cover that up. We would suggest that you not require them to tile that drain. However, the Settler's Canal -- is that right, Bruce? Settlers will be tiled and the applicant is proposing to do that, so that's not a major issue. We do intend on keeping the Jackson Drain open. As you will remember, we have dealt with a few other applications in the past, Butte Fence and Aire, Cooper Canyon, Fountain Park, those were all required to build pathways and the pathways are built adjacent to Aire Manufacturing right now just south of Butte Fence and it is an open -- the pathway adjacent to the open Jackson. We have got Page 9. Those are some standard comments. Page 10, we get into the Conditional Use and some of the Conditional Use issues we have already discussed concerning the fact that they are reducing the amount of nonconforming information -- nonconforming land uses, according to the Comprehensive Plan. As we get down to the site-specific comments, the site-specific comments are very general. Most of the major comments were handled in the Preliminary Plat. It gives you a lot to think about. There are a couple of additional issues that I would bring up. Within the plat that you have in front of you, this lot that's in the very southwest corner, is, actually, an open space lot for drainage. It doesn't provide any access to any other the lots and it doesn't provide any sort of open space amenity, because it's not actually visible. This is specifically to be a drainage lot with -- it doesn't really benefit the city. The major benefit that you see within this development on the southern portion would be the connection to the existing subdivision on the ped path. Along the northern boundary of the property they have a large open expanse for the Jackson Drain with the pathway, which they will build, to meet the requirements for the Planned Development by providing those amenities, we do have the code for that. You do have in front of you tonight -- I know Jon just handed this out during the break. Mr. Wardle has prepared a written response to the staff report and gone through a lot of the issues that Jon has addressed and he has quite a few issues that he does disagree with. I won't steal his thunder, so he's got a few issues that he'd like to bring up. After he has an opportunity to explain to you the reasons, justifications for his disagreements and for his proposal, staff would ask that you give staff the opportunity to review what he has to say and offer additional comments. With that, I would open myself up to answer any questions that you have for us at this time. Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Could you go back to the area map, Dave? There you go. I wanted to look at the subdivision below regarding that stub street. Do they have another access below the one access there into that subdivision? See, they have this one. Does this subdivision have another access down in here or do you know because I'm wondering if they really want to get into that subdivision? I don't think so but that's my opinion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 79 of 132 McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, that is the only access into that subdivision. Centers: The only access. Zaremba: I think if you wind your way through you can come out -- Borup: Except for here. Zaremba: You can come out on Pine somewhere. Centers: Yes right here. Borup: Is this Pine -- or this is Pine here? McKinnon: Bruce -- I think it's called Atkins. Centers: Is this Pine? McKinnon: Is it Atkins or Pine, Bruce? Freckleton: Well, Pine is further south. Borup: That's what I thought. Pine is way down there. This isn't even -- is this even a road? Zaremba: That's the border of the drawing, but I think that you can get to Pine Street -- Borup: It continues on. Okay. I think Jon can clarify that for us any other questions from staff? Go ahead. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, Atkins is the street that runs north south right here. This goes all the way down to Pine Street. That is the only other connection to the subdivision. There are no other accesses to that subdivision off of Locust Grove. Zaremba: The same stub street -- I suppose at this point there is no way to build a turn around there? Is it short enough that it doesn't require one? Freckleton: Commissioner Zaremba -- Borup: It's met the requirement. It's only one lot. Freckleton: It's one lot depth. We wouldn't require a turn around and there are currently homes built on those lots, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 80 of 132 Borup: But for some reason they wanted it -- Zaremba: If I remember some of the issues from the previous -- the roadway that goes along here. There was concern by one of these two property owners in the adjoining subdivision. The elevations are such that the roadway is above the fence line, thereby having headlights shine in their houses. We approved an eight-foot fence or something like that or more trees -- I'm hoping that thought didn't get lost. I forget what the solution was, but we did something that was sensitive to those homeowners. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, the gentleman that actually testified at that last meeting concerning those issues was actually here earlier tonight. The applicant has had discussions with him and he will be able to address that tonight for you. Zaremba: Okay and I seem to recall -- this is in the packet, a previous layout. I seem to recall on the commercial properties there was some restriction about fast foods or hours or something. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some restrictions on that. I think that the applicant actually addressed some of those in his application material and he could probably address that better than I could. I didn't work -- well, I had just come on to work for the City of Meridian when this made it to the original Public Hearing, and so I'm really not the best person to comment on that. Zaremba: Okay. McKinnon: But I don't think that that's a bad idea for this application as well. Borup: Anything else? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Wardle: Good evening. For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address just changed. It's 4940 East Hill Station Drive in Boise. I'm representing LC Development on this project and I guess just a point of clarification. Do you want me to answer your questions first and then -- or -- I have written most of this down. I can address it at the end of the presentation. Whatever -- Zaremba: Any order is fine. Wardle: Okay. As Mr. McKinnon indicated, this project has changed significantly from what it was previously. We had proposed 180 apartments with -- I think it was somewhere around 15,000 square feet of commercial/retail space for the project. We have changed it to a townhouse project with both attached and detached units, as well as 6,000 square feet of commercial space, which we intend to be office. In terms of the restrictions on the uses of fast food, that's fine. We are not intending to do retail per se. It would be more office space or professional, but in terms of a restaurant or something like that, that's not the intent of the project that's in front of you this evening or as Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 81 of 132 proposed. I had an opportunity to review the staff report and I want to say for the record that we are pleased with the staff report. I use the disagree and Dave has also used the word disagree I think that's probably a little strong. I spent a lot of time over the last four or five months working in Utah and I have to say that your staff that you have here is very professional and they do a good job. They are very competent and they have been helpful in all the work that you have been involved in out here and as to the things that I'm involved in down there, I don't have that pleasure so kudos to your staff. We did have a neighborhood meeting on this project, sent out fliers, I was very specific on what the project was, and included a plat as well. Unfortunately, we didn't have anybody show up to that meeting. There were two neighbors here this evening, one of which was the neighbor with the fence. The other neighbor that showed up tonight was the gentleman across the street in that little triangle piece. I met with both of them and talked about the project and they both left very happy with what's proposed. As to the gentleman and the eight-foot fence, I showed him our Landscape Plan. We show a few trees back in that area as well where that swale area is where the open space is, where eventually some retention might occur. We talked with him about a six-foot fence. He is fine with the six-foot fence as well. Mr. Centers has dropped off plans to him, he received those, and he is delighted with the single-family nature of the project versus the rental that was proposed previously. If I might just go through some of the issues that were in the staff report. In the annexation file, AZ 02-027, I passed this out in front of you. On the staff analysis, Pages 3 through 6, Items A through L, we don't have any issues with any of those items. I just want to note for the record that ACHD did approve this project on December 11th and that staff report is included -- the staff report and final recommendation is included in your packet as well. If we go to the annexation and zoning comments on Page 6, the issue that we have -- not really an issue, it's kind of a clarification. I think Dave did a very good job of describing it. I might give you a little bit more background about why, perhaps, this would approve with C-C. The recommendation was made from this body to the City Council that perhaps a different designation be given on this property. Originally, it came through a C-G, which, I believe, was a little more liberal in the type of uses that can occur. I think in order to kind of bring that in a little bit, a compromise was made to the City Council to zone this C-C. I don't know if at that point anybody paid attention to the amount of land that was required for C-C, but that was what was zoned and approved and ultimately annexed and is on the books today. We are reducing that from almost three acres down to about eight tenths of an acre in size. As for the condition, if it's just informational only, we don't have an issue with it. If it ends up being an issue when we come back in to do Final Plat that we don't comply with that, then, we do have an issue with that. We just made the recommendation that that comment be deleted. Duly noted, but that that be stricken from the record. On the Preliminary Plat, Pages 6 through 7, comments on Items A through E, we don't have any issues with those comments as stated. The additional consideration Number 1 -- and this relates directly to Scrivner. There was a lot of discussion that we had with ACHD staff regarding our road systems and the right of way requirements. When it came right down to it, the roadway system that we wanted to do, from the Highway District's perspective, would not qualify for public streets, so we proposed private streets. The issue that we have is the connection of Scrivner to Drucker, which is our -- I'll call our east-west street in the project. It would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 82 of 132 go from -- if the roads were to connect, it would go from a public street to a private street to a public street and if you look -- Dave, if we could back up to that previous drawing. Borup: Quick question, Jon. Wardle: Yes, sir. Borup: Has ACHD changed their policy? Wardle: In what regard? Borup: I'm sure I can remember previous projects that it has been improved on -- and maybe they were private, but I don't think so 42-foot right of way. Wardle: Commissioner Borup, if I could answer that. You are correct. In some instances, ACHD will approve a 42-foot right of way. There are a couple issues that they will approve it. It depends on whether there are physical constraints, so if you have a tight, narrow piece of property that you could get homes on each side, but, you know, you could only do it if you had a 42-foot right of way, instead of 50-foot, they would do that. Borup: That's not the one I'm thinking. Wardle: The other case is -- it relates to the amount of homes on the road. The -- if we can go to the other plan really quick our first road in front from Locust Grove, that one technically -- that is just the north-south segment, would qualify for a 42-foot street right of way. The rest of it, the loop all the way around connecting from Locust Grove back onto Locust Grove, would not qualify under ACHD standards. We went through that quite a bit with them and we couldn't do it and -- Borup: That's what it was then the amount homes on the street. Wardle: That was the issue. We didn't qualify for that. ACHD does have -- they prefer connectivity. That's what they have stub streets and I'm a firm believer in connectivity as well. In this case, given our private streets and the public street connection, it doesn't work. ACHD agreed with that as well. In fact, they waived their policy to make it work, given that the turn around -- there would be no turn around required from Danbury Fair. It was -- met the requirement of one lot in, didn't require a turn around. The option was we could put a turn around on our property if we wanted to, but they weren't going to require a turn around. That's why we don't make the roadway connection. We do make a pedestrian connection, because I think that connection is very important between those neighbors. There was a lot of discussion previously at the hearing that those neighbors were in favor of a pedestrian connection, but not the roadway connection, and we had that proposed and we are in favor of that as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 83 of 132 Centers: The neighbors to the -- Wardle: To the south. Centers: To the south were in favor of the pedestrian connection? Wardle: Correct. Borup: This time you mean? I know they were previously but this time you don't know no one showed up. Zaremba: No one ever showed up but let's assume they feel the same way. Wardle: I would assume so. Talking with the one neighbor, who is part of Danbury Fair, and the fence, when he got it, our notice, he was thrilled to see the type of housing that we were going to be going there. I think the fact that it changed from a rental property to an owner-occupied property is the difference and we have done a pretty good job of identifying what our market is for this as well. We are requesting -- that's the clarification, that's the history on that issue. On Site-Specific Comment Number 1, the Preliminary Plat, we don't agree with staff's recommendation that Scrivner be connected through. I have stated what ACHD's report was and ACHD does state that typically they do want those to connect, but in this case they agreed to a waiver of district policy for that requirement not to extend Scrivner. We request that site-specific condition for the Preliminary Plat be deleted. Also on Number 2, Dave did a good job explaining the setback issue, what's required by the Landscape Ordinance and there is a little bit of misinformation in there that I placed in here, but that was based on some information that I got from staff and we got that clarified. The fact of the matter is this is one cohesive project. We have proposed townhouses, commercial and we feel that a 15- foot setback from the back of those office buildings to the property line and, then, a 15- foot setback on the property line to those residences is sufficient given the intensity of the use. With the Planned Development Ordinance, you do have that discretion to allow us to do that. It was detailed in our application pretty specifically, on what we wanted, as well as on the drawings showing a 15-foot rear setback and we just ask that you concur with that and delete Site-Specific Number 2. Just to address, quickly, the parking issue. We are in agreement with that, given that, you know, our connections are to Locust Grove. We don't have any opportunity of connecting through and creating kind of a gridded system. We are willing to -- for parking, restrict parking to one side and we will show that on the plan as it goes to City Council as well. On Item Number 6, Lot 41, we kind of all congregated this one little area, which is back to that common lot with the micropath. Lot 41 shows a detached single-family residence and, in essence, we are treating it as a zero lot line and we would build the unit right on the property line. There was a statement made in the staff report that it doesn't comply with the R-40 zone side yard setback. If you read the ordinance, the interior side yard setback in the R-40 zone is zero. That's in Meridian City Code, Dave can correct me if I'm mistaken, but that's -- we do meet that setback. The thing that makes this one parcel unique is we have got a 30-foot buffer there between the edge of this property to the next property Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 84 of 132 and from edge of property to micropath I think -- when I calculated it earlier was about 15 feet. There is a lot of space here. It's not going to be a burden that we feel and we have talked with Dave also about fencing. The fencing would be in line with the house and since it's adjacent to the common area -- and I know that the City Ordinances, the maximum height would be four feet along those micropaths so it would be that portion of the back that would be that, so it would just create a plane along the side there. Borup: I do have a question on that. Why did you have a 30-foot for the -- halfway? Wardle: You bet. That's a good question. Borup: It looks to me like an easy solution would be to cut that down to 20 feet and you have got 10 more feet on the lot. Wardle: The one issue that we do have there -- and you probably can't see it very well there, but if you pull out your drawing in front of you, there is a waterline there that we have to connect that basically would loop our system through. We connect at Penn Station on the northwest -- Borup: So you already have a water easement through there, right the utility right through there? Oh, right over there. There it is. Wardle: If you measure the water line right now from edge -- from the property line to center of water line or whatever you propose, it's about seven, seven and a half feet, so there is not a lot of room. I mean we -- if we needed -- if we needed to -- and I don't want to suggest this, because it's going to cost -- cost money. I think there are some things to move that, but that's why that line is rigid, because of where that alignment of that water line was. We also looked at originally there was going to be the sewer line through there, but found that we didn't need the sewer to service the project, but the water line is necessary for the project, so we have a looped system. Did I answer that correctly, Bruce? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the waterline does need to connect. If they are not going to use the sewer line, that easement could be reduced to 20 feet. Borup: But it would be on the other side, it wouldn't be on Lot 41. Freckleton: We'd like to see -- we'd like to see it centered on the water main, though 10 and 10. Borup: Okay. All right. That answers -- Freckleton: The water could be shifted. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 85 of 132 Wardle: So we just simply ask that you delete Site-Specific Comment Number 6, allowing that property to be -- to be built as configured, unless we can all put our heads together and come up with a better solution. Given where the water line is, that's why that lot ended up that way. If we go to -- I guess we should be Site-Specific Condition Number 5, the second time so if you go through 8.1, two, three, four, five, and, then, it's the next page on Item Number 5, talking about the micropath connection from Locust Grove Place up to the greenbelt and that's what it really is. There was a lot of discussion of what that pathway connection is. Let me give you a little bit of history. When Penn Station was developed, Mr. Centers built a 10-foot pathway north of his project. When he brought this project in -- he's the owner of both projects -- he brought this project in, he -- it was his intent to continue that pathway to Locust Grove to create kind of a regional greenbelt system, which is occurring now downstream with Cooper Canyon and some of the other properties, which I think you have identified earlier as well. The issue that we have is the areas that we have identified for bringing that micropath from our project out to that facility are constricted at the street. We feel that given that it is regional in nature, it's a greenbelt system that it's not -- it will benefit, to some degree, our owners, but it's not restricted to only our owners' uses, we have some concern about safety between those residences. We feel that a better connection occurs out at Locust Grove where it's visible, where they don't come between residences, since it is a regional path way. We would just asked for your consideration on that to not require a connection between those -- those residences at that location. Zaremba: Let me -- I'll go over that in a moment, but there is a connection here? Wardle: Correct. Zaremba: Of some sort. I remember discussing that earlier also. What you're asking not to do is connect -- Wardle: To one of those. Zaremba: -- these spots -- Wardle: One or the other. Zaremba: Is there any connection back here? Wardle: Is there is not and Mr. Centers and I talked about this today, about what -- you know, the best scenario. We are providing the open space there and we know that our residents can get to it, because there is going to be openings for it. We just feel that there might be some safety concerns about somebody who doesn't belong in that neighborhood coming in between a couple residences that's not -- Centers: Well, you say there are openings for it. They can get back to it if they want. Wardle: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 86 of 132 Centers: It's just not a dedicated micropath. Wardle: Correct. There would just be grass through there and -- Zaremba: It's not paved. Wardle: It's not paved. They could get to it. The openings are there for them to do that. We are just asking that a physical pathway not be constructed. If we keep people on the pathway, you know if it's their intention to just come through to get to Locust Grove, that's great, because I think that's ultimately where they are going to go and if they are familiar with the area, they are going to come in. We are just asking that that consideration be given. We left it open with the intent for them to get there, just not really show the path or show the way to get there. Borup: So right now it would be a continuous path from Locust Grove to Stonehenge? Wardle: That's correct and I believe in the city -- the city also had made a statement -- it doesn't affect us, because we don't own the property, but the property to the east. The city had made a statement in a previous approval that that owner provide a pathway as well to continue the system. We are -- I think Mr. Centers has done a good job on getting this online and being very supportive of it, and you know, turning this over to the city as a good facility. Centers: I think this is a good time to interrupt, because you keep referring to Mr. Centers. This -- Lee Centers is no relation to Jerry Centers and we have made this for the record a number of times before, so go forward. Wardle: And if I refer to him, I'll call him Lee Centers. Centers: No. That's fine. Borup: He just wanted to make sure that -- Wardle: Thank you. Borup: Either that or he wants a percentage. Centers: Yes be a partner. Wardle: In talking with my engineer today -- and this is on Item Number 11, this would be on my Page 4. I'm not up to speed with this and maybe Bruce can answer it. I don't know if this is a real issue, but he was concerned about the way that the City of Meridian reviews storm drainage facilities and the way that DEQ does, he felt that there were some discrepancies in the requirements. I know that DEQ reviews those pretty thoroughly -- or not. I could be mistaken but it just -- he just asked that we at least request that the storm drainage facilities be in accordance with the requirements of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 87 of 132 City of Meridian and DEQ. On general comments on the Preliminary Plat, on Page 8, I think staff did a very good job on clarifying what the intent was with the Jackson Drain about leaving that open as a natural feature. I wrote underneath a requested action and that language -- actually, it was pulled right from the previous approval, talking about that facility. You can include that if you want or not include it. We are willing to go with that. It just saves the City Council required approval, the proposed sign, tiling the Settler's Canal, also known as the Flume Canal, and leaving the Jackson Drain untiled with a pathway along the north side of the property that must match the pathway constructed at Penn Station project. The proposed path shall be concrete or asphalt to match the rest of the pathway. The property owner to the east -- and that's why I said there was some additional language there. The path property owner to the east of Locust Grove shall work to continue the path extension when the property is developed. The city further requires that the pathway be paved after it is deeded to the city and the city accept the pathway to maintain it before construction of pathway by the developer. The rest of those items on the Preliminary Plat, we don't have any issue with and, like I say, I don't have any issues with items on the CU for the Planned Development. The one -- maybe just to clarify on the rear setback on this -- on the periphery of the project there are actually two locations where we ask for a 13-foot setback. I will just put this to rest right now. We can live with the 15-foot setback. We were looking at it today. We can pick up, you know, the necessary foot or two that we need by making some of those interior lots just a little -- like shaving a half a foot off of those interior lots in that middle loop and we can make that 15-foot work for us. We are in agreement with that as well. We did show up on the northern boundary -- I think they are Lots 12, 11, 10 and 9, those are shown as a 13-foot setback as well. I'm not sure if staff picked up on that, but it was detailed in the report. We asked for 13 feet. We have enough room, we can expand it, but if you look, there is quite a large distance between those lots and we talking up in kind of the northwest corner between that and the pathway. If we need to expand that property line up just a little bit more to get the necessary feet, we can do that, or leave the 13 feet, whatever is easier for staff to deal with. The bottom line is we can deal with the 15-foot setback and not compromise that condition as required on the Planned Development Ordinance. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman? Jon, can you clarify that for me? You have some 13's up here. Wardle: Yes. McKinnon: Okay that wouldn't be a problem for staff, as long as it's not on the real edge periphery. If that can get to open space, we are okay with that. Wardle: So those are okay right there? McKinnon: That would be correct. I think it needs to be pointed out, though, that the Site-Specific Comment Number A-1 says that the rear setback has to be 15 feet. That would have to be modified to allow that on those northern areas, but -- let me see. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 88 of 132 reduction of -- north on the periphery -- that the north not be considered part of the periphery. Borup: When the ordinance say periphery, you're talking property line? McKinnon: Property line edge. Borup: Yes and those north ones wouldn't be on the -- are not on the property line. Wardle: That's correct. McKinnon: I guess I don’t need to be modified. I guess Wendy's got it written correctly. Wardle: And I just want to state again the type of uses that we are intending for those commercial lots. We really see those as office space for -- it could be a dentist, it could be a builder, very kind of low intense use, your hours are typically 8:00 to 6:00. We are not proposing a restaurant or retail -- the site of the project doesn't lend itself to a retail center. Just to let you know what our intent is with that and if the requirements were pulled from the previous Development Agreement to fine-tune that, that's fine as well. I just wanted to put in your mind what we are intending to do there. Zaremba: And I'm -- as we go on I'm remembering more about what that conversation was. I think. I think the original proposal where that subject came up about restricting, not having fast food and staff, you had commercial all the way down to the adjoining subdivision property line. Wardle: That's correct. Zaremba: And their concern was that there would be noise and too much traffic at night right next to their residences. Wardle: Right. Zaremba: And I think seeing that you have pulled it up and you have got two housing sections between their subdivision and any of your commercial, I don't see that as being an issue that it was at that time, because of the other locations, so -- Borup: I agree with that. Zaremba: I'm remembering why that was part of the conversation. Borup: Yes there was a buffer designed in the project now that -- Zaremba: So that problem doesn't exist. We earlier thanked Mrs. Bowcutt for providing responses in this format and I would like to thank you also. To have it this organized and clear is very helpful to us. Very good. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 89 of 132 Wardle: For the record, thanks for letting me come and testify this evening. Once, again, staff probably doesn't get enough credit. They do a good job and appreciative of the effort that they have given us on this. Zaremba: It's interesting when you go somewhere else you appreciate how fine our staff is. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, before we get too much into a love fest, I have got to beat Jon up on a couple of issues here. Would it be okay if I ask a couple questions of the applicant? Borup: Yes. That was one of the questions I had was your comment on at least two of them, but go ahead. McKinnon: Yes let's jump to Page 3 of Jon's responses, if we could. Item Number 2 is a disagreement. Something was itching at the back of my head when we started talking about that 15-foot and we couldn't remember what the issue was. Wendy didn't address it, but I remember discussing with Wendy -- and I don't know if you all have a copy of the Landscape Plan. When we discuss buffers between land uses, there is a requirement that they provide some landscaping between those buffers. The proposed Landscape Plan shows only sod at the rear with a fence behind that project. The Landscape Ordinance talks about the buffers and buffer walls and if there is a fence, then, they need to at least plant one tree every 35 lineal feet. Would you be willing to add some additional trees, one per 35 lineal feet? Wardle: Yes, we will. McKinnon: Okay. That's something that should be added. I don't have any other problem with that. If we could jump down to Item Number 6, the disagreement on Lot 41 configurations. This is more of a technical question, but I'm sure -- well, I know the answer, but I will go ahead and ask the question. If you build on a zero lot line, will you be allowed to have any penetration such as windows and doors exiting or facing that direction? Are we going to be stuck with a two-story building without any windows facing onto the common lot? Wardle: First off, that would be a one-story structure. McKinnon: It's a one-story. Wardle: All the units are one-story in size. I believe that we would have some windows opening out on to that -- that area, instead of having a blank wall. I mean we can work with you on that. McKinnon: You can go back to the Uniform Building Code or International Building Code question with building on zero lot lines, but not having any of the other sides -- it's just a question that -- Keith might be able to answer it better than I would, being a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 90 of 132 builder. Typically on a zero lot line, you don't have the penetration, especially the type of construction that you're using when you build a single family home. Lee might -- Wardle: The way that that unit is laid out, all of the windows currently will orient the other way. McKinnon: Okay. Wardle: Essentially, you took a plan that we had and you divide it down the middle, there weren't any windows on that side anyway. I don't -- I think a blank wall might be -- I don't know. McKinnon: It was just a question. Borup: Was your question concerning -- I mean you were wondering about esthetics or -- McKinnon: Yes. It's more of an esthetics type of question. Zaremba: Were you advocating windows or something? McKinnon: You know it sure is nicer to look at windows than a wall with a fence that extends on either side of it with a roof. You know, some sort of window -- from the street. If you have a pathway, you don't have anybody that can look into the pathway and it's going to lead into this -- the next question I had for Jon. There are no eyes on the pathway. The second question would be -- because this is not a typical micropath that we have established as a micropath, we have no guidelines that we have allowed that would restrict the pathway to a four-foot fence. Essentially, the applicant could go to a five -- a six-foot fence. If we -- rather than deleting that, if we could go the direction of requiring only a four-foot fence adjacent to the pathway on either side of that pathway, so we don't end up with a six-foot tall corridor, I think Jon addressed that, but we could make that specific. Do you have any problem with that, Jon? Wardle: I don't and I think -- actually, I'm looking for the condition, but I think staff said that we needed to abide by the conditions that related to micropath design and -- McKinnon: Let me find that real quick. Wardle: We are in agreement with that. McKinnon: Okay. Wardle: We don't have an issue with the four-foot fence -- McKinnon: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 91 of 132 Wardle: -- adjacent to those micropaths. McKinnon: Okay let's jump down to Number 5 at the bottom of your Page 3. It's dealing with the Flume Canal and the pathway connection from within the subdivision. Would it be possible at all, Jon, to take lots -- I think it's actually Lots 7 and 8 on the plat, but I have got a copy of -- not six and seven that -- well, it's between six and seven. It's Lots 7 and 8 that are kind of the two lots that have open space on either side. You say you have a small section of land -- I could probably scale that out real quick. Would it be possible to move that either to the -- either to the west or to the east, these two lots right here I'm talking about -- move that either to the west or to the east, so that you could have an open space that would be wide enough to accommodate a micropath? The reason I ask that question is this micropath, per the Planned Development, is supposed to be an amenity towards the subdivision. It duals as a regional pathway system, granted, but if you can't access it from within the subdivision, does it really offer any benefit to those people who live within the subdivision. Zaremba: I think his earlier comment was the subdivision users would just walk on the grass. Is that not acceptable? McKinnon: Well, you get to the same issue of -- if you don't have the micropath that's there, you end up with the ability of the homeowners to put the six-foot fences there. With those six-foot fences there, all of a sudden you create a system that's actually more disruptive or more -- it would cause more problems, because you had a six-foot area that nobody can see into. Especially, if you take into consideration with their Landscape Plan, it puts a tree right at the front on the street right there, so that nobody can see in from the front so people can access that. It might be better to restrict that access and put people in the right spot for that and put a four-foot fence requirement, so that people can actually see into it, rather than allow a corridor with a six-foot fence on either side. Wardle: I understand what staff is asking. I think we are just going to leave our request as stated and not require the micropath and leave it to your discretion on what you would like to see there. Our position is we don't -- we feel that there are sufficient accesses to it without actually having to make a pathway out to it, people can get to it, we haven't blocked them off from it, and it will connect to a public sidewalk out on Locust Grove as well, so -- Zaremba: Would you accept the restriction on fence height along that common area to four feet? Borup: It depends on -- I mean you have got access right here, too. McKinnon: No, you don't. Borup: Don't you? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 92 of 132 McKinnon: No. There is no access, except for Locust Grove. This is the only -- Borup: No, I don't mean a -- Zaremba: Access like a path. Borup: Right. McKinnon: But that is a house right there. That's a house. Centers: Well, this is 10 feet and that's seven feet and -- to me, that's access. As long as we restrict it and they don't block the access. As far as a fence along each home, you know, I don't know if that's going to happen, but how will that restrict the access? McKinnon: It won't necessarily restrict the access to it. A point that was made by Jon was that you have a situation where you're dragging people in off of a regional pathway into a -- Centers: That's my concern, too. McKinnon: -- private subdivision. You got that. You have got those openings and you're going to have those people coming through there. May point is that -- Centers: But they are not an advertised micropath. McKinnon: It's not an advertised micropath, but you can see through from one point to the other. It's not advertised. That's correct. That's a really good point. I didn't think of it that direction. I think it would be -- I think it would be preferable, rather than not having any access for people that live within the subdivision, except for going through those. You're not going to -- if it's utilized like as an amenity, you're going to end up with what I like to call a game trail through that landscaping. You're going to end up with a human game trail where people are using that to -- Centers: You know, after this is developed and down the road, if I -- if I were there and a homeowner and on the homeowner's association, they may want to build a fence back there at some time, if they get a lot of traffic coming into their subdivision. McKinnon: Yes and that's one question that, actually, wasn't brought up that I was going to get to Jon. It's proposed for you tonight, is along the back of that regional pathway system, there has been a lot of discussion in our office as to whether or not it's appropriate to allow a six-foot fence to be built adjacent to those regional pathway systems. Centers: Well, I can see it happening if you get a lot of people that are using that regional pathway system and they are wanting to take shortcuts through this subdivision and maybe -- who knows what type of people -- you know, so I can see the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 93 of 132 applicant's point. You know, he talks about security, but I just see derelicts and vandalism type people going through the sub so I can see a fence being built back there. McKinnon: Okay. The issue that would arise from that is if we had a six-foot fence that was built across the back of that, those derelicts and other people that you envision are going to be able to congregate back there without anybody seeing them. Centers: That's true. Borup: I don't know if derelicts do a lot of jogging. Centers: I guess you see where I'm coming from. McKinnon: I do. Centers: I don't think we need to advertise the micropath. McKinnon: At the same time, if we get away from the advertising of the micropaths, the whole idea of a pathway system being provided regionally throughout the city should be an issue that maybe needs to be revisited. Centers: Exactly but they are providing access. I mean we can't deny that 10 feet and seven feet. Those people are going to be able to get back there if they want to go jogging. McKinnon: The question that I would pose now, then, is the one I just posed a minute ago is that do you think there should be any restriction of fencing adjacent to that regional pathway? Should you restrict it to four feet in height? Should there be some sort of restriction to -- Centers: Did I open a can of worms here? McKinnon: Well, it's been something that has been a requirement on other plats, but it's not something that's listed per se. The only point in our ordinance that it's required is -- I shouldn't say it's been required by the plat, it's been required through annexations and through the Conditional Use Permits. Centers: I think we could require them to come back and apply to the Fence Committee, which are chairman heads. Well, he's a member of so, we could make that requirement if they wanted to build a fence along the pathway, that they would have to come back to the fence committee. Is that what you call yourselves? Borup: Sounds good. Centers: Yes. Close enough. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 94 of 132 Borup: I'm not sure where Dave's talking about the fences. Along the property line or -- Centers: He's talking back in here. Borup: Okay. Those are 50 feet away from the path. Well, right here is. It's 50 feet away. Rohm: I think he's talking right here. Centers: No. He's talking by the -- Borup: Along here there is about 50 feet, to the pathway along here. It's quite close and, then, you have got that security problem. Rohm: If we were to just put a limitation of a four-foot fence on the east line -- well, let's see. Yes. The east line here and the west line there and on either side of those four lots restrict it to a four-foot fence, that would address your issues, would it not, Dave? McKinnon: It would address those issues. Jon, have you got any ideas? Borup: Jonathan, had you thought about the idea of sliding these two lots one way or the other and just making a wider access? Then, there would be just the one area that the fence would be restricted on, rather than -- rather than two areas. Commissioner Rohm, do you see what I was -- Rohm: Yes. Borup: -- saying there, maybe? Wardle: We are not committed -- committing to a four-foot fence. I think we are still unsure on that property adjacent to that greenbelt. Interior where you have those little triangle spaces -- Borup: Right. That's what we are talking about. Wardle: -- possibly we could get away with a four-foot fence, but on the greenbelt side, I think we want the flexibility to do a six-foot fence if they want to do a six-foot fence. Rohm: I don't there was any objection to the six-foot fence on the back lot line. It's the lot line that's parallel to the pathway -- Zaremba: The wedges. Rohm: Right and that's where the pathway is in those -- on those wedges. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 95 of 132 Borup: Well, that's what I'm thinking. If that slid or those are combined, a six-foot fence wouldn't be a problem, because that flares out so fast and it's wide enough. Right now they are fairly narrow. You know, it went from -- to 17 on the front and, then -- you know, it's going to be up to 60 or more on the back -- 60, 70 on the back and you don't have that tunnel effect. Wardle: And you got to keep in mind here that any fencing that would occur, it's going to be in plane with -- from that house, which is 20 feet back. I don't have my scale on me, but if you measured it, your wedge -- you know, where that point begins is 20 feet back from that sidewalk. It shows 10 feet up there, but I mean it's going to open up quite a bit. Borup: The 10 foot one doesn't the seven-foot does. The 10 does a little bit it goes to 11. Wardle: Is it just 11? Once you get 20 feet back there. Borup: That's right where the angle starts. That's right where the angle starts in this -- Rohm: Are you thinking a resident would want a six-foot fence along the east and west line of the lot; do you think? Wardle: You know, that -- Rohm: Or you just don't want to put a limitation -- Wardle: I don't want to put a limitation on it at this point. There will be some human activity in there, whether it's invited or not invited. We are hoping that we are not inviting too much. We know that our residents can get there, it's just a matter of how that is and whether they are just trying to protect -- Rohm: Curious. As far as from a maintenance perspective on those two wedges, what do you propose is going to be on that -- Wardle: How will it be maintained? Rohm: Yes. Is there going to be a grass area that the subdivision itself will maintain? Wardle: Correct those open spaces will be maintained by the owners association. That's probably more of a little swale than -- maybe six inches to a foot in depth. It would be pretty subtle. Rohm: I think this Commission kind of leans towards either sliding it one way or the other or putting a limitation to the fence. That's kind of the consensus that I'm gathering here and it's kind of an either/or issue. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 96 of 132 Wardle: So, if I can just restate, your -- the first option would be shift those two lots left and right and so there would only be one opening, or the other option would be limit the fences on the side to four feet. Rohm: Bingo. Wardle: Okay. Give me just one second. Borup: David, on the previous project, was there any micropaths connecting the fence? I don't see it on the plan we have here. We have got a small one that's -- McKinnon: Bruce has a large plan. We will look at it real quick. I doubt that there was, but -- I don't believe that they had houses backing -- Mr. Chairman, on the previous plan you actually had apartments that backed up to that with wider spaces in between than what the applicant is proposing. There was no direct access or micropath to that in the original approval. Wardle: Dave? McKinnon: What might just solve it -- and Bruce and I were just talking a little bit back here. Rather than moving it back and forth, if there is no intention of providing access there and if you look at the Landscape Plan, we have got trees planted in those wedges. If there is the intent to fence across the back, it might be better served for that area just to be incorporated into those -- the lots on the sides, rather than provide any access period. Just get rid of the wedges and make them part of the lots and let them fence that. If there is not intent for people to use those wedges to access that from the subdivision, which it doesn't sound like there is, then, we would be just as well served by allowing those wedges to be part of those people's front yards and part of those people's back and side yards. Borup: See, I assumed there was intent for them to use it, just they would cross across the grass area, but -- Zaremba: Even if you close those up, if you have made a drainage lot, so that this was tight, you could still walk across here. McKinnon: That's a house, Commissioner Zaremba that you're walking across. Zaremba: This is a house here? McKinnon: That's a house. Zaremba: Oh. I thought that was drain pit. Wardle: No. That's actually a home. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 97 of 132 Zaremba: It is a house, isn't it? Wardle: I'm going to defer this issue, because I don't want to speak for the applicant and he said he could come up and address this directly, so -- Borup: I mean the plan shows this as a drainage lot right here, too. Wardle: No. Pardon me, Commissioner Borup that -- I think that reference refers to that entire area. Borup: Oh. I see. Wardle: The drainage that would come out -- Borup: That's just where the lettering is. Wardle: That's on six and seven. Yes. Centers: So, Dave, if I gather what you say, you're okay with just leaving it as submitted and agreeing with the applicant that they disagree? McKinnon: If they want to agree to disagree, that's fine with me. Centers: Okay. McKinnon: And leave it up to you guys to make that decision. Borup: Well, he was saying do away with that common area between the lots and increase the lot size would be an option. McKinnon: If we want to discourage people from using that as a cut through, just eliminate those two wedges. Borup: Let's see what Mr. Centers has to say about that. L. Centers: Lee Centers, 325 Meridian Street. You know, we never got that far on that. I didn't think it was going to be an issue. I believe the intention would be to fence along the property lines all the way, including those two open spaces. You have got a -- the Parks Department is going to take the path over. They will have to be responsible for maintaining it. It becomes public. We have got private roads and we have got private common areas. I don't want to be responsible, nor will the homeowners want to be responsible for maintaining -- and that's what's going to happen -- the pathway in there. I don't know how the pathway got started. That wasn't our intention. It will be fenced. Those are people's back yards, they all got patios, they all got barbecues, and I -- it would decrease the value of those four homes allowing people to cut through there. I wouldn't like that. You couldn't stop them. You know, you got people over, you're going Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 98 of 132 to barbecue, and here comes a flock of, you know, ice skaters -- or I mean skateboarders and that kind of stuff. I would fence the back. They can -- the intent of that greenbelt, the way I understand it, is from one public road to another public road, not to go through people's back yards. I mean I wouldn't want that and I don't want to be responsible for it. Rohm: I think Dave's comment about just eliminating the wedges addresses it from both angles. I mean you eliminate the pathways from the outside entity and you no longer have a fence issue. That seems to address the whole thing and you don't have people in their back yards. L. Centers: Right. Rohm: There you go. Zaremba: Let me ask this -- propose this as a solution. I think there are 11 lots along this arch. If you just widened each one of them one foot, you would use up almost all of that space. Is that a solution? L. Centers: You know, we would consider that and we will get with the -- Zaremba: And I'm not making that a requirement, it was just a suggestion. L. Centers: What we were trying to do there was to give it some interest and that's to be open space and landscaped as part of our open space and people will -- you know, somebody will use that but it's for the esthetics, I believe. Zaremba: I think because of the curve of the road you're always going to end up with some little wedge there. L. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: I think what we are talking about is just closing it off so it's not -- doesn't connect to the road. L. Centers: Right. Borup: Or make it part of the lot. It's going to increase the value of those lots. L. Centers: If you can understand what I mean, if you do cut throughs through there, you decrease that property value, if you ask me. Zaremba: Well, I think people will cut through, so I'm trying to prevent that. Rohm: That's why you put the fence up. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 99 of 132 Borup: I don't know. They have got to be going somewhere if they are going to cut through and I'm not sure where that would go to that they would want to. Rohm: Home. Zaremba: On a different subject, I have a -- just a knowledge question for me that maybe staff or Mr. Wardle can answer. With a private roadway, who owns that? Is that a common lot that the homeowner's association owns and maintains? Wardle: Commissioner Zaremba, that's correct. There is a little call out near the bottom. I, actually, think it's called out of Lot 41 or something and it is a single lot. It may not be 41. It's -- I don't remember the number. Zaremba: Forty-five. Wardle: Forty-five and that is a common lot dedicated to the owner's association. Their dues would take into consideration the maintenance of that facility long term and there would be reserves for that. Centers: Snow removal and everything. Wardle: Yes. Did we do snow removal on this -- Centers: Not this winter. We are getting it in the mountains. That's the good news. Borup: Jonathan, did you have any additional comment on Mr. McKinnon's response to your comments if we can remember what they were? Wardle: I think the one issue that Mr. McKinnon brought up was the four-foot fence on Lot 41. We agree with that. That's fine. Borup: The other was on the setbacks. Wardle: As for additional -- Borup: the 15-foot -- Wardle: Yes. On that -- on that commercial lot where we had to show the 15-foot setback, we are in agreement or we concur with putting -- planting one tree per 35 lineal feet, so -- Borup: Okay. Wardle: That was just an oversight. I didn't mean to scare the public off, but I think I addressed their questions pretty well, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 100 of 132 Zaremba: I don't know if we have asked if there was anybody else that -- Borup: No, we haven't yet. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we have in the staff report requested that we get a -- I'm going to go back to the fence issue just briefly one more time. I know we have beaten the fence issue a lot tonight. Wendy, in her staff report, did require that they submit a detailed fencing plan with the Final Plat and that would give us some time to determine what we are doing. A couple points that really haven't been brought up that need to be brought up would be, one, that property to the north is a project that is a junk yard, essentially, and there is not going to be any eyes on the pathway from that side. I'll guarantee you there are not going to be people watching what's happening on the pathway from that side. As it makes the bend at that location up, the Police Department is going to want to be able to have some sort of visibility into that and I think it would be good to have some comments from the Police Department. One of the requirements -- when we went to the Landscape Ordinance, the Police Department was very adamant about requiring some sort of visibility into the pathways and some way to access those pathways in case there is an emergency, if there is any other problem back there. We could address those issues with the Final Plat and at that time, we could have the Police Department's comments concerning that. In addition to that, one option that really hasn't been discussed tonight would a four-foot fence with a two-foot lattice. The lattice would allow the privacy and at the same time would allow eyes to be on that and allow visibility into that. Those are two options that I would put for you for that. As far as the rest of the comments that Jon had tonight, I will pat Jon on the back, after he got done patting ours. This helps us out a great deal as well for organization and I appreciate him doing that for us. I was able to get us to focus on the issues that we have got tonight and I think we have got the issues all laid out. I think it's -- I think we are to a point now where you guys know the issues and we can probably go forward. Wardle: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Any comment before any additional testimony? I think we are ready to move along. We had several sign up. Most of them are for. There is one -- oh, I'm sorry. That's the wrong subdivision. Do we have anyone else to testify on this? Okay. Zaremba: Wouldn't you know everybody that came is for the last item on the agenda. A lot patience. We appreciate that. Borup: Any discussion, Commissioners, or are we ready to -- Centers: Yes. I think we can go through it, down through the items real easily. Jon Wardle makes it easy, as Dave said, and I would recommend, if you guys could do it, make it a requirement that the applicant submit this in response to your staff report. It sure helps us. It sure helps you. I don't know why we can't require it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 101 of 132 Borup: Most of the time they do. He's just gone beyond that a little bit with some additional wording that -- Centers: The other applicant, that's the -- Zaremba: Becky Bowcutt. Centers: No. She always does. The other individual he never -- Zaremba: From JUB? Centers: He just gets up and starts talking and -- Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Zaremba: On all three items. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Okay. Centers: Well, if you want to go down through them, he starts with the Preliminary Plat, the additional considerations on Page 7 on Scrivner. Borup: The first one was on the Scrivner connection. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: I'm happy with the micropath there. Centers: Yes. I am, too. Totally. Borup: Well, I am, too. I really like to see the interconnectivity, but in this case we have an entrance on Locust Grove. Centers: Well, then, you have two entrances to the subdivision. Borup: But the other one that's there, that's not going to do -- Centers: But to this subdivision you have two entrances. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 102 of 132 Borup: Right and the one to the south has an entrance on Locust Grove. To do that is really not that hard to do, all you do is make that section of Drucker a public road, if you want to have the connectivity. It's not impossible to do and still keep the rest of the project the same, but -- Zaremba: I'm satisfied with the -- Borup: It's not serving any purpose. Centers: So I'm striking Site-Specific Comment Number 1? I personally struck it. The top of Page 7 and, then, we went to Item 2 on that same page, the 15-foot buffer. They want -- the city wants the 20. I don't know if we really resolved that. I just feel that the 20 around commercial is code and maybe we need to comply with that. Borup: Oh, that's what I was going to -- Dave, was that -- was there confusion on which section or which ordinance? McKinnon: Yes I think there was. I can get that for you really quick. Do keep in mind that we are not going to object to the 15 feet, as long as we get those trees. The applicant does have it within his rights to ask for the setbacks to be reduced in a Planned Development. Borup: Does that need to be a formal application or is this tonight -- McKinnon: By the Planned Development Ordinance you're allowed to ask for those without a Variance. Borup: Right. I mean does that need to -- the requesting be a formal request or just -- McKinnon: I would consider the discussion tonight being a formal request. Borup: Would be the request. Okay. Centers: So you don't have a major problem with the 15 around that, especially -- Borup: As long as there is -- McKinnon: As long as we have the trees, I don't have a problem with it. I can get you that section of the code, though, that actually does address that, if you want to give me just one second. It's 12-13-12-4, land use intensity classifications and class one, single-family homes adjacent to offices, which is a class three -- between a class one and a class three is a 20-foot requirement. Then, we can go back to the little C underneath that, it says buffers between land uses is required only along continuous lot lines so those are continuous lot lines. Then, it goes on further in this section of code to say that the buffer needs to be required on the heavy -- the higher intensity use. The entire buffer, if it's available and that's -- responsibility for buffer construction. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 103 of 132 required buffer between different land uses shall be provided on the higher intensity use so there is a requirement for 20 it's required to be on the office's side. Because this is Planned Development, a request has been made to go to 15 feet. Staff doesn't object to the 15 feet request, because this is a Planned Development and it's being developed as an overall concept with that. If we were to go straight with code, however, it would be at 20 feet, but because this is a Planned Development, we have a little bit of flexibility with those rules. Centers: And the fact -- and I think we will probably put that in the motion that he's going with office and not high density, you might say, for retail -- McKinnon: And the higher intensity. Centers: Right. Okay and we were in agreement to allow the zero lot line on Lot 41 and limit the fence to four feet. McKinnon: That's fine. Borup: I would like to encourage some architectural detail on there, whether it's windows or -- I don't know what rather than a -- on the Lot 41 house. Rohm: Rather than a blank wall. Borup: Yes rather than a big blank wall but I don't know how -- I think that's to their benefit to do that, too. I don't know if they want to do an ugly house. I guess I would say just to encourage -- McKinnon: I wish I had the information for you tonight concerning what the International Building Code does with this type of construction, but if I remember correctly, they don't allow penetrations with that type of construction, because it's -- Borup: And I'm not familiar at all with zero lot lines. To me the factor would be you're against a 30-foot -- a 30-foot pathway and the next house are 35 feet away. Centers: I don't think the applicant would have a problem with some esthetics and windows on that side. Then, moving on, on Page 8, I think we all agree to strike Number 5 on the top of Page 8, construct a micropath. Then, in lieu of that, I would add enlarge -- they will enlarge the lots how they see fit, but we could state that Lots 6,7, 8, and 9 would become larger with no openings between lots -- with no openings. Then, I think Dave wanted to add item 12, detailed fence plans prior to Final Plat. Borup: So you're saying you're requiring them to --- Centers: Just close it up. Borup: Yes if there is going to be a fence along the back, what difference does it make? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 104 of 132 Centers: Where were you when we were talking about this? Borup: Well, I was here, but I thought that's what they -- no, that was before we started talking about a fence along the back. Centers: I think that was Dave's suggestion, too, the way he started. Rather than have any access at all, to just enlarge the lots and go from there. Wasn't that right, Dave? McKinnon: It was kind of a -- Borup: Unless you want to leave it up to the applicant to do what they want, as long as they don't change the lot configuration substantially. Centers: They will enlarge, just -- they are going to have to enlarge them if they are not going to have any openings there. Borup: They could do it just like they have submitted and have landscaping in there. Rohm: Yes I think the applicant actually, liked the idea of the open area available, even though -- Borup: To the -- Rohm: -- to the homeowners themselves, as opposed to closing it off completely. Isn't that what you were saying, Lee? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, if I can offer just a clarification point. The applicant was, as Chairman Borup pointed out earlier tonight, that they were intending that area to be used partially for some drainage and if they need to use that for drainage, we shouldn't, as a body -- we shouldn't, as a body, require them to eliminate that, just carte blanch you can't have it, whatever you do with it, we are okay. We should allow them to continue to use that for storm drainage if they choose to do that. You know, we could go the and/or route with that. In my own mind I'm still struggling with the -- with whether or not this is an amenity to the subdivision. Zaremba: Well, I wasn't envisioning eliminating them, I was envisioning pinching them off at the street side, so that they don't actually connect to the street, but I don't see them disappearing. McKinnon: Yes that's -- I can see where you're going with that, too. Borup: Well, then, there is no access to them. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 105 of 132 McKinnon: There is no access it would be visual -- yes. As long as we leave it up to the applicant to term what they are going to do with that. We have heard from the applicant tonight that he definitely wants to fence the back of it adjacent to the -- Centers: I don't have a problem with that. I never did so I'm back -- we just strike Number 5 like -- McKinnon: You just strike number and leave it the way it is and we don't have to deal with it. Centers: And, then, on Page 4 of the applicant's -- we agree to modify Site-Specific comment on the drainage area -- McKinnon: Okay. Centers: You know, in agreement with the DEQ. McKinnon: Okay. Centers: And, then, we will just put those in the record. Okay. Are we all in agreement? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, before you make that motion, two additional points of clarification. On Page 2 of the response by Jonathan, he asked that you strike Annexation and Zoning Comment Number 2. Did you guys want to keep that in? That's basically for informational purposes saying that it doesn't meet minimum lot size in a C-C zone. Do you want to keep that, eliminate that? Centers: Are you talking about the eight acres? McKinnon: Yes. Centers: Yes. I did want to strike that. McKinnon: You did want to strike that? Okay. Centers: It's of the record. McKinnon: Okay and just -- we were just going through a lot of this letter and you guys were all discussing it and I just had one other question, I wanted to make sure you guys were all in agreement on that before the motion. Would be general comments on -- turn back to page four of Jon's comments. On Item Number 8 for the general comments on the Preliminary Plat, he requests that you adopt the language that was approved at the previous application. If that -- if you do go along with that, there should be some modification to that, eliminating any reference to Penn Station -- constructed in the Penn Station -- well, I guess you could leave it at that. The City Council -- you would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 106 of 132 have to strike the language saying the City Council requires the approval of the proposed design. You could state that Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, if you want to go with that recommendation. Centers: So just eliminate the first three words. McKinnon: That might be the way to go and change that with the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends. Centers: P&Z -- okay. McKinnon: If you want to go with that requested action, staff doesn't have any objection to that. Centers: Okay. I'd like to recommend approval for Item 9 on the agenda -- excuse me - - Item 8 on the agenda, AZ 02-027, request for zoning boundary modification of R-40 and C-C zones on 11.76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place Sub by Wardle & Associates, west of Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview. Including all staff comments and on Page 6 of the staff comments, Item 2, we would strike that and it was duly noted end of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Item 9. Centers: I would recommend approval for Item 9, PP 02-026, request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 74 building lots and 11 other lots on 11.76 acres in a proposed R-40 and C-C zones for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle & Associates, west of North Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue. Including all staff, comments and hereby amended Page 7, under site-specific comments, strike Item 1. Number 2, we will allow the 15-foot buffer around the commercial development. Number 6 we will allow the zero lot line on Lot 41, with a maximum fence limitation of four feet and we will require the home built on said lot to at least have windows facing that common area. Item 8 -- Borup: Windows or just an architectural detail? Centers: You know, architectural detail that would be pleasing to the eye. Borup: Either/or. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 107 of 132 Centers: Either/or. Item 8, Sub Topic 1 all rear setbacks shall be 15 feet, except the northern lots. Page 8, Item 5, and it is Item 5, even though the numbering system got a little screwy there, but it is Item 5 at the top of Page 8. Strike that requirement add Item 12, applicant to submit a detailed fence plan prior to Final Plat. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if I could jump in real quick on that. I believe that that's actually Site-Specific Comment Number 7 currently in the staff report. Centers: Right up above that? McKinnon: Number 7 states that a detailed Fencing Plan shall be submitted upon application of Final Plat. Previous Number 7 sorry. Borup: Back on Page 7. McKinnon: Back on Page 7 of the staff report. Centers: Oh, we had that. Why did you bring it up again? Okay. Good. McKinnon: I just brought it up as a clarification saying that's one way we could resolve that issue. Sorry. Centers: Number 11, too, on Page 8, should read -- add: Or DEQ required. Right? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, did you want the suggested language included from Mr. Wardle's letter stating that in accordance with requirements of the City of Meridian and DEQ? Centers: Which page of his letter, Dave? McKinnon: It's Page 4. Borup: Page 4. Centers: Page 4 are we already there? McKinnon: Yes. Centers: Yes Item 11, include the language submitted by the applicant, which you have a copy of. McKinnon: Thank you. Centers: The applicant's inclusion is on his Page 4 under requested action at the top. Okay. Page 8 are we -- Item 8. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 108 of 132 Borup: And that was a question that previous -- Centers: Page 8, Item 8, correct the Preliminary Plat -- provide sanitary services and water service -- where am I at? Borup: The numbering is off. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, if we could take Number 8 that's on - - well, Page 8, Number 8, with the requested action, that was the one we were going to change the wording to Planning and Zoning. Centers: Is it our Page 8, Number 8? McKinnon: Their Page 8. Let's see where Wendy's got that. Borup: I think it should have been Number 7. His comment was Number 7 and it's our staff comment number -- McKinnon: No. Borup: I mean Staff Comment Number 7, his comment Number 8 is that correct? McKinnon: Page 9 -- okay. Hang on you guys go to the staff report Page 9. Borup: There we go. McKinnon: Irrigation ditches. Borup: Right. McKinnon: Item Number 8, if you guys could all do me a favor and just take that out of general comments and let's make that Item Number 12 under the site-specifics. Centers: So Page 9, Item Number 8, strike? McKinnon: You could remove it from there and make it Site-Specific Number 12, because it is more of a site-specific comment, because you guys are telling the Council what you would like them to do with the Settler's Canal and the Jackson and the pathway. Does that make sense? Centers: Yes Page 8 will become Site-Specific Comment Number 12. McKinnon: Okay. Centers: Page 8 -- Page 9, Item 8, will become Site-Specific Comment Number 12. There we go. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 109 of 132 Zaremba: As modified by the applicant. McKinnon: As modified by the applicant? Centers: As modified by the applicant in their submission, Page 4, the item at the bottom. McKinnon: Including the words, Planning and Zoning Commission recommends, rather than City Council requires? Centers: Yes the start of their verbiage should read, Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the proposed design and I think that's the end of the motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: That was a five-minute motion. Rohm: Good job. Borup: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just one point of clarification that Bruce brought up to me, just so the applicant knows and you all know. In the discussion, we talked about that landscape buffer, the 15 feet between the office and the residential requiring some additional trees. The applicant agreed to that. The motion did not include any comments for the trees. However, when I write my site- specific comment I will say it shall be in compliance with the Landscape Ordinance, which will cover that. It was in agreement with that. Centers: Right. McKinnon: I see nods from everybody, so that's the intention, that's the way it will be written. Thank you. Centers: And, excuse me, we have got to move on here with recommending an approval for Item 10, CUP 02-041, request for a Conditional User Permit for a Planned Development for 74 townhouses and two office commercial lots on 11.76 acres for proposed Locust Grove Place Subdivision by Wardle & Associates. West of Locust Grove Road and south of East Fairview Avenue, including all staff comments and I would additionally state that the commercial development, as the applicant has stated, is going to be limited to office-type development. Zaremba: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 110 of 132 Borup: I don't think he stated -- well, you're saying that if you want to do that. I don't think the applicant stated that it would be. He -- Zaremba: The discussion centered around not having food businesses there, but I don't think the reason it was -- Borup: I think he said he anticipated it would be office. Centers: Well -- and I think -- again, we can certainly discuss it further. There is no second but that's the reasons for the limited 15-foot buffer, the applicant indicated, you know, office space, no retail, and I can't see retail being there anyway, but -- dentist office, builders, realtors, people like that. I think we -- I think we should put -- you know, I would be willing to give them some leeway, you know, with other uses, but -- Rohm: Well, office definition could be varied also, so -- Centers: Oh, yes. Zaremba: Would you want to say any use that does not conform to L-O requires another -- Centers: That's a good -- that would be good verbiage. In fact, I noted the L-O on my notes. If it doesn't conform to L-O, they would have to come back for -- Zaremba: A CUP. Centers: Yes that would be my motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second any other discussions? All in favor? Any opposed? Sorry. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and 2 other lots on 3.66 acres in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th Avenue: Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-045 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 19 single-family attached units in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – West Alden Drive, southwest corner of West Franklin Road and Southwest 7th Avenue: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 111 of 132 Borup: That does conclude that. Item Numbers 10 and 11, Public -- or 11 and 12, Public Hearing PP 02-029, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 19 building lots and two other lots on 3.66 acres in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle, Inc. The CUP 02-045, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development with 19 single-family attached units in an L-O zone for Scottsdale Villas Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers. I'd like to open both Public Hearings at this time and start with the staff report. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. If you will allow me to come up front, I'm getting a little tired of sitting and it would be helpful for me to come up front. On the overhead that you have in front of you is a brief overview of the project and I will give you some background on the site. The smaller Site Plan that you can see -- I don't have my laser. Let me grab my laser. The project is located just off of Franklin Boulevard, off of 8th Street. This project is another project -- it's amazing tonight, every single application that we have seen tonight has been a retread of another project and this is what we are dealing with again tonight. This property, when annexed into the city -- or when originally approved within the city for the first project, this property came in as R-15 zoned and, then, the applicant decided -- or the owner of the property decided it would be a better use for it to go to an office use and they changed the zoning to an L-O use. Then, just recently, you received an application and there was a denial given by the City Council to allow some four plexes on the western side of the property. That should give you some idea -- jog your memory just a little bit. The reason why the City Council recommended denial of that application was because the adjacent property owners are all single-family, one story houses, and they felt that the two story apartments adjacent to single-story, single-family, was an incompatible land use. There was a lot of discussion with people from the neighborhood saying that they didn't want people to look down into their back yards and that application, I believe, was actually heard three times in front of you as a body to work out different arrangements. However, it was finally denied by the Council based on incompatible land uses. The application has come forward now stating that they would -- the owner has come forward now saying they would not like to do the L-O uses and they would like to revert now back to the R-15 zone. A couple things have happened to create a little bit of stir and I will explain to you why the application tonight and the staff report includes three proposals, rather than just the two that are on the agenda tonight. The project is a Planned Development -- let me just get this out from the outset. This is a single-story, single-family attached dwelling type of project. They are not proposing any two-story buildings. In fact, the plat has a note on it that restricts them all to single- story. The issue is two-story buildings adjacent to the single-story along the western boundary. Those issues are all but eliminated. The Planned Development project required that they provide open space and some amenities. The applicant has done that and you would not have seen that with the other types of applications that have come through with a different use. The use that they are suggesting would be a use that would be attached single-family housing, with some townhouse uses up in this area right here. All of the homes are attached. There is some possibility, if the application would like, to take the townhomes, the lots in this area and come off the common drive, these six lots, rather than attach all three of them together, attach two of them and have Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 112 of 132 one detached on either side and staff doesn't have any objection to them doing that. The big problem that comes in is staff has no problem with allowing this type of use and everything, because it is an appropriate use, it's a transition from four plexes to a medium density, to a single-family density. It provides an appropriate transition between land uses. The issue that comes into play is this property is currently zoned L- O. In the L-O zone, the proposed uses that you have in front of you tonight are not permitted uses, they are not Conditional Uses they are prohibited uses. The Planned Development Ordinance states that all uses -- in a Planned Development all types of housing is allowed in a Planned Development. Unfortunately, a residential Planned Development is prohibited in the L-O zone so there is some confusion between the language. After this -- the application for the Planned Development and for the Preliminary Plat came to us, we, as a staff, got together and we determined that it should be rezoned back to R-15 in order to comply with this and that's the reason why there is a requirement for them to apply for the R-15 zoning, which they have done. We received the application for that after the notice had been sent out for the hearing tonight and so the hearing tonight is not on the rezone, but, rather, just the Conditional Use Permit. The Preliminary Plat and this should not go on to Council, unless the rezone is recommended for approval by you in two weeks at your next hearing so, we can discuss the Conditional Use Permit. Right now it's currently prohibited. You can add a recommendation on tonight's meeting if you would like to close the Public Hearing and recommend approval or denial. If you recommend approval, you can recommend that this not go on to Council, unless you make a recommendation for the R-15 zoning. There is one other thing that comes into play with the L-O zone and what makes this tricky is in the time that this was originally zoned R-15, changed to L-O, the Comprehensive Plan changed and the Comprehensive Plan now shows this property has L-O. With the L-O, we, as staff, don't believe that this -- so to pose the question, thus, the staff is what would be the most appropriate way to handle this, to say that this does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. There are arguments that would say this complies with the Comprehensive Plan, because it's a Planned Development, we are providing a transition of land uses. However, it's not a specific L-O use. The Zoning Ordinance states that these uses are prohibited. However, we could have required that the applicant submit an application for a Zoning Ordinance amendment. We have had an awful lot of Zoning Ordinance amendments that we have brought in front of you and in front of Council. We have got a book -- you have seen me with that big notebook over there that was just the revisions that we have done in the last year. Since we have done a lot of them, we decided it would be most appropriate, rather than to do one more revision and create an additional amount of paperwork to support the L-O zone, that's not what we are going to talk about tonight, that's two weeks in the future. What needs to be discussed tonight is whether or not this use that is being proposed at this location is appropriate and whether the Preliminary Plat for this project is done appropriately. There is just basically one real issue that we need to work through with that and it has more to do with Bruce than it does with me, but it goes -- it all ties back to this L-O zoning. The sewer connections and the water connections that were installed in this roadway are commercial connections and now they are proposing the residential connections off of the commercial connections. There is going to have to be some cutting of the roadway and some patching or possibly some relaying of the road, but Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 113 of 132 Bruce can address those issues concerning the commercial connections and the differences between commercial connections and residential connections. Those are the major issues that we have. We don't have an issue with the setbacks. We don't have an issue with them requesting reduced street frontages. In the R-15 zone, if they are allowed to have the R-15 zone, there is a street frontage requirement of 50 feet per lot. We are okay with the lots that they have suggested so we don't have a problem with it. The commercial connections would be one issue and before I turn the time back over to you, I will tell you that there is one other thing that may be brought up tonight that you may all remember, was that when this was approved as a Final Plat initially -- and, of course, this is a re-plat of that Final Plat. When the Final Plat was approved for this project, when it was rezoned L-O, the applicant at that time was required to install partial landscaping on the buffer on the western edge of the property. There was a requirement that he put in all the pine trees and, then, in the future, as those lots develop, the developer of each individual lot would have to complete that 20-foot buffer. These lots will now be people's rear yards and their homes, the city does not want to come in and say you're going to require a 20-foot landscape easement in people's back yards and tell them what they have to plant in their back yards. The use will be different, it will be a less intense use, it will be single-family use, rather than office use, and so there won't need to be the buffer between the different types of land uses. We have eliminated that requirement from this, so in case there is any confusion, if you remember that, we have, essentially, ignored that and said because this is a re-plat and people's back yards, we are not going to deal with that tonight. Staff feels that this is appropriate and feel it's appropriate enough to rezone it in some conflict with our Comprehensive Plan. We feel that this is a strong enough project that we can support this and we feel strongly that this is an appropriate use at this location, based on the uses that are in the surrounding area. In addition to the fact that this is an in-fill development and all the properties around it are developed and so we are going to get some density where we have nothing right now. With that, I would ask if you have any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, when was the Comprehensive Plan changed? Was it after it was rezoned to the L-O? McKinnon: The L-O was -- they were given the L-O zoning before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and the Comprehensive Plan was adopted just to mirror what the existing zoning was. Rohm: There you go. Okay. Thank you. Centers: Surrounded by residential, too, mostly other than across the street. McKinnon: Other than there is a commercial office, it's a -- I think it's Farmers Insurance Office, it's right here, and, then, you have the Castle Day Care -- Dreamland Day-Care. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 114 of 132 Centers: Yes that -- McKinnon: Yes. Borup: And to the east is multi-family. McKinnon: To the east you have four-plexes, two story four-plexes, and to the west you have single-story, single-family detached housing. That was a big issue for Council. That was the reason for denial. It's in the staff report. I'm sure you have seen the staff report that references that. Like I said, I have talked with the applicant. There may be some desire to change this from being the triplex style town home to being attached single-family with a detached single-family and staff would not object to that -- that change. The only other item I think that may be brought up and might be a concern and the applicant can address tonight is on the plat they have said that we don't want -- they only want to do single-story. I don't see any reason why staff would jump in the middle of saying not to allow any two-story adjacent to the two-story four-plexes. It's not a requirement of the plat -- of the staff to restrict that to one-story over there. I believe it was very prudent of the applicant to require that over here that they are all one-story, but if they wanted to go two-story over here, staff wouldn't have any objections to that, should that be brought up tonight. Borup: Anything else? Rohm: I'm just curious. If we can't move forward without the rezone, it's seem like why don't we act on all three issues at the same time? I mean there is nothing wrong with taking public testimony, but you can't make a recommendation to Council. Borup: We can go through the testimony, reach a conclusion, and table it. McKinnon: And the reason -- Rohm: And maybe -- Borup: Well, we wouldn't have to continue it. We can close the Public Hearing and table it, can't we? McKinnon: Sure could. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Rohm, I will address that question specifically. The reason why we decided to do this tonight, rather than hold all three of them together and continue it is because it was noticed and there would be people here to testify tonight. You can see that there have been a number of people that have stayed through the night to testify for this, and your schedule is very heavy for the first meeting of each month. The next one is going to be really heavy, so that would dump all three of these on you at once. You can determine whether or not you think it's appropriate tonight and, then, the next meeting you guys aren't going to need to spend as much time, because if you have already determined it is appropriate, then, you have the rezone issue and that's the only one you deal with. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 115 of 132 Centers: Right but I'm with Commissioner Rohm that we table to -- and we are going to have one new Public Hearing, a rezone. McKinnon: Yes. Centers: And we would have everything done. McKinnon: Move all three at the same time. Centers: Yes. Zaremba: And I agree with keeping them and forwarding them to the City Council, all three of them together. Borup: Right. Zaremba: So I think your suggestion of hearing these tonight and, then, holding it until the zoning catches up with it. Centers: Yes. That's good. McKinnon: Thanks, guys. If you guys want Bruce to address the issue of commercial connections or -- Borup: Yes. Zaremba: There is a five-year moratorium on digging up streets, isn't there something like that? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I will touch on that issue, too. What we have got, we had -- the utilities when they were installed were installed for commercial -- the commercial lots. The City of Meridian Public Works has a requirement for commercial services that we stub in larger diameter mains or services to commercial lots than we would residential lots. These lots, I believe, have eight-inch diameter water mains stubbed into them, far more than you would ever need for a house. So -- and there were fewer lots when it was a commercial subdivision than there is now, so the location of those services isn’t hitting the right locations for the residential lots. Some of them do hit and they will be okay, we can work with the applicant on more or less converting them to residential type services to and try and minimize the amount that are going to have to be abandoned and replaced. I guess that's a point I just wanted to make, is that we will work with them on trying to preserve as many of them as we can, but there are going to have to be some that are going to have to be new. I do have some suggested modifications for the staff report and I can either go over those now or later into the hearing. The item with the no-cut moratorium that is an ACHD moratorium from their policies I simply put that note in there as more informational. I do have some additional language that I would add to that that might Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 116 of 132 help the applicant feel a little more comfortable with that comment, too, so I will stand for any questions you have or I can give you the wording or however you would like to do it. Borup: Questions from the Commission question on the stubs, both sewer and water? Those connect -- well, maybe the sewer. Do the water connections need to be made out of the main line in the street or can they come out of the right of way and T off within the utility easement on the front of the lots? Freckleton: That's what we are trying to get away from is -- Borup: I kind of assumed -- Freckleton: -- coming outside of the right of way, T'ing and more or less having parallel mains behind the sidewalk that's going to serve several houses. There is locations where -- I can't really see them on this map, but -- Borup: They are on our plat. Freckleton: There are locations where a main will hit in the right location. I think that's one right there. In that instance, you know, you can, -- we will just adapt residential service to that existing larger commercial service and make it work. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to come forward? Boyle: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Clint Boyle with Pinnacle Engineers, 12552 West Executive Drive. I want to start off by saying good morning this morning. I'm glad that we are still all here for this hearing. I apologize I don't have a list of comments. I tried to work everything out with staff in advance to minimize the amount of time that you would spend here tonight. Unfortunately, we are going to get home in the morning. This development proposal is an in-fill project. We have worked closely with the staff and the staff has done a very good job of summarizing items. The development proposes 19 homes on the site. They are all proposed as single-story residences and, the staff has explained some of the history and the reason that we are back in front of you with single-story, has had application denied that were two-story in the past for some multi-family units by City Council. You guys -- many of you have been involved in the discussions. The office development that the developer was originally proposing here, he has decided to go with a residential development. A lot of that is due to market conditions and the market conditions that he sees as far as the marketing for offices and not being a very strong market right now. However, he does feel that this community that he's proposing here has a strong market at this point in time. This is proposed as a -- what I will call a seasoned citizen development. Essentially, they are going to market this to older folks, so they are proposing what would be a nice close-knit community here that would be a quiet area that would benefit those type of residents. Now, just to explain the development a little bit, as far as the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 117 of 132 landscaping -- and the landscaping was discussed a little bit. This particular project already has some evergreen trees that are planted around the entire perimeter boundary on the west side and also the east side that are already installed that were required when they came through with the office development. Now, that was in anticipation that there would be offices there and they would need to buffer these single-family homes and possibly the multi-family. Now he's coming in with single- family residential. Those trees will remain, they will just become part of the property owner's back yards, essentially, and they will have a nice evergreen tree in their back yard when they purchase the lot. Now, in addition to that, there are two common areas proposed, one on the east side of the project and one on the west side. Those common areas actually qualify as being larger than 10 percent of the overall sight, so even though this is an in-fill, the applicant is complying with the PUD requirements and providing 10 percent in open space. They will also have a pathway system that loops around the open areas on both sides and those pathways are proposed to have some benches along them and, then, also some fairly heavy tree plantings around those pathways as well. That will provide a nice walking area for those seasoned citizens if they want to get out and exercise, it gives them a nice path. A lot of them like to walk. This will give them a nice area that's somewhat secluded to walk in so, we think that this is a -- going to be a really nice project with regards to that and I'm going to try to make my comments very brief here. The rezoning request, I would like to touch on that just briefly. Originally, when we submitted, it was a Planned Development request with the Preliminary Plat proposal. We have had quite a bit of discussion with the staff and that discussion has focused on the Planned Development Ordinance provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that were adopted recently. The conflict that Dave was talking about is the fact that in the L-O zone, single-family residential is not permitted as either a permitted use or a Conditional Use. We kind of went back and forth on this requirement, because there is another section in the PUD that says a variety of housing types may be included within a single-family -- within a single Planned Development, including attached units, single-family attached homes, townhomes, duplexes, et cetera, regardless of the underlying zoning classification of the site. That's where the confusion has come in, is because that specific provision says you can present a residential PUD, regardless of the underlying zoning classification, thus the proposal, even though it's an L-O zone that we originally submitted, however, there is the conflict in the ordinance with the L-O saying you can't do single-family residential. To clarify that whole issue, we agreed with the staff that we would present a rezone request and take it back to the R-15 zone. Borup: Was it decided that that -- that that probably meant regardless of the residential zoning on the -- McKinnon: Mr. Chairman and Clint -- Borup: I mean that was the assumption I would have, because we have had various residentials on these -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 118 of 132 McKinnon: Clint got that so close to my understanding of it as well, but let me explain understanding. In the PD Ordinance and schedule of use control, they said in all the residential zones you could do a residential Planned Development. Then, the L-O, the C-C, and C-G, I-L, all the rest of them, they said Planned Development was a Conditional Use in all of those zones, but a residential Conditional Use is prohibited in all of those commercial zoning designations. Therein lies the -- it's not the fact that single-family homes themselves are prohibited it's a Planned Development for residential use is prohibited in those zones, including the L-O zone. Clint points out correctly that the Planned Development Ordinance does state that regardless of the underlying zone, so therein lies the conflict. Borup: Well, that was what I was thinking, when it says regardless of the underlying zone, do you think it intended to mean -- assumed it was a residential underlying zone? McKinnon: Yes and that's a flaw in the ordinance that we are going to have to correct, but rather than correct them point by point, we are going to hit a whole bunch of them at once and try to get a bunch done at one time, rather than nickel and diming our ordinance to death. Zaremba: Including the I-L zone? McKinnon: The industrial zone. Not the I-L zone. We have got one of those. Borup: But I assume you're okay with the rezone? Centers: Yes. Borup: Which is what we are -- Boyle: Right and part of the reason that we are here tonight is when we discussed it with staff, realizing that your agenda was very full for the next meeting, hopefully, we could discuss most of the issues tonight, have everything worked out, maybe even have the Public Hearing closed on these two items. Then, at the next meeting, the discussion has taken place and we can move through it fairly quickly. That's the intent, that's the reason we are here with you this early Friday morning. With that said, as far as the staff comments, we are in agreement with the staff conditions and they are pretty straight forward on this project. Bruce did explain some things related to the sewer and water services and he is correct, there are commercial services stubbed out to the properties right now. We would love it if the city would allow us to extend what they consider to be parallel water lines adjacent to their mains, because we wouldn't have to cut the road. In other words, if we can tap into these commercial services, extend them either direction, and put residential service connects off those that would be great. The developer, I'm sure, would be much happier doing that, because it would eliminate some of this cost with cutting into the street. Unfortunately, our understanding -- and I'm sure Bruce would agree with this, is the city policy is that they do not like to have and do not allow those parallel line extensions. There will be some of the services that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 119 of 132 we will have to actually cut into the street and tie into the mainline to bring into those homes. Some of them fall where they need to currently and we can use those, because they are falling right near the lot line or on the lot lines in accordance with city policy. Site-Specific Condition Number 1, under -- this is a Page 5 of the report -- talked about the applicant being responsible to abandoned the existing commercial and water services in accordance with city standards. I guess, you know, we just wanted that clarified, that we would abandon any unused services, but that we would still be allowed to work with staff, just as Bruce indicated, to utilize whatever commercial services we could. That was just a clarification there. Then Item Number 2, which was brought up by one of the Commissioners, is related to ACHD, it talks about their no cut moratorium, Bruce has some language, and maybe we would like to hear that. The discussion that I had with Bruce on that is ACHD -- their policy is to restrict cuts into roads that are less than five years old. However, they do -- they have allowed it, they do allow it in certain instances and a lot of it is based on the type of patch back asphalt that you do. Sometimes you have to do a 20-foot wide patch back if you're cutting into a new road, rather than just a -- maybe your standard trench width of five feet or whatever, so they required wider patch back on that. Again, Site-Specific Number 2 of the staff comments, I was trying to get Bruce to just strike it -- or just put in the language that we will comply with ACHD requirements. I mean it's an ACHD provision on the street cuts, not a Meridian City provision, and we will comply with ACHD. Centers: It says that. Boyle: So, yes, and that's all we are asking for there, so -- Centers: It says that. Boyle: Okay. Outside of that, I think everything else was in order as far as the requirements. They are requesting some reduced setbacks within the subdivisions. Some of those apply to the rear yards that are adjacent to the common areas. The way -- do we have one that actually shows the buildings, the Site Plan with the building footprints on it? Okay. Here we go. With the building footprints, the way that those lay out, to accommodate a micro pathway connection back into these lots, I believe it was in this particular area the setback will be roughly 12 feet from that common area. All the others actually meet the required 15-foot setback, but we do have that request to -- only along the common lot areas, reduce that rear yard to 12 feet. Again, to explain the way the project is going to function, this particular project is proposed with no fencing, no interior fencing. The lawns, the landscaping on the individual lots, will be totally maintained by the homeowner's association. There is a similar retirement -- I guess I shouldn't say retirement community. Maybe that's what you call them. Okay seasoned citizen community that is called La Playa that many of you are probably familiar with. It's going to be a similar concept here, where it's an open yard, open look, and the homeowner's association is maintaining those yards, so if one of these seasoned citizens, if they decide they want to go on vacation for a month and head south to Arizona. They can come back to a well-manicured lawn, pruned trees, and everything is in order on their lot. It is going to be somewhat open and we are trying to create that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 120 of 132 openness to provide a sense of community among the residents there and so with that, I know there was a lot of discussion about fencing along pathways. This is proposed to be open, so there will be eyes and ears and whatever else out onto those pathways and try to make this as pleasant of an experience as -- for the residents as we can. Outside of that, the only other -- actually, two points I want to bring up briefly and that was the staff -- Dave discussed the three-plexes, I guess, I will call them. There are three single-family dwelling units attached here, three here, and three here. The applicant -- or the developer would like to have the option of splitting those out to where there are two units attached and, then, a detached unit -- two units attached. Then, a detached and it really isn't an issue, I don't believe, for staff. It's a pretty insignificant change, but they would like to have the flexibility to go either way with those units. The only final point that I wanted to make is the developer is looking to get some units in the ground as soon as he can on this, because he feels there is a strong market. Presently, there are seven platted lots within this area that were platted when it was originally going to be commercial. He would like to have the opportunity to be able to pull up to seven Building Permits before the plat was recorded, which is the situation that the city has done in the past. Where after the Conditional Use Permit, the Final Plat is approved by the City Council, in certain instances such as that where there are existing platted lots, they have allowed for permits to be pulled on what would be those existing lots. Basically, what that means is if, for some reason -- if they started a Building Permit on one of those lots and the market went south on the rest of the project, you would still just have a single -- you know, they could start out with some of the detached and maybe the attached on those lot lines. The point would be that they would still be entitled to those seven Building Permits, because the lots are platted right now. He wants to keep the option open if he can to be allowed to pull those seven Building Permits. I don't know if Dave has thought about that more, but we discussed that pretty extensively on that and that is an option that the developer would like to keep open. Borup: So you're saying it would be on house designs that would fit on the existing lot? Boyle: Right. Borup: I mean we don't know what the existing lot is. I don't know if any of those houses split the existing lot lines. I'm assuming that they don't. Or at least the ones that did you would not be able to get a permit on that. Boyle: Right and part of that could also apply, like I said, he would like to keep the option open to detach some of these units and, obviously, with a single detached unit in each of these areas, let's say, then, those would potentially fall on their own individual lots within what was previously platted for the commercial project. Borup: David, have you thought about that? It sounds like they are saying a Building Permit would be taken out on the existing lot design. McKinnon: Well, the issue that we run into is we could allow a Building Permit to be pulled on a lot, but if we allowed a Building Permit to be pulled on a lot for a project with Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 121 of 132 a Conditional Use Permit that hasn't been approved yet by Council -- at what point were you wanting to pull those -- Boyle: Well, let me back up. McKinnon: Prior to the plat being recorded? Boyle: Prior to the plat recording. We will be through all the approvals with City Council, the Conditional Use Permit, the rezone, and the Final Plat, it's just a matter of allowing those permits to be pulled prior to the plat being recorded, which -- McKinnon: And we have allowed that in the past. The only thing that we would require is the same thing that we would require on the Final Plat, that you have bonded for the improvements that are required, just all the standard things that you need for a signature on that plat. Boyle: Right. Centers: How much time does that save you two weeks? Boyle: Actually, in this instance it will save quite a bit of time, just because it's not -- it's not like your typical subdivision. Most of the improvements are already in, so the developer is going to have some -- well, I won't say minimal cost, because it's a substantial cost to me, but in the development world his costs are going to be fairly minimal as far as him improvements. He's not going to be running new sewer and water mains in the street, so he's going to be able to bond for everything, move that plat through fairly quick and start his improvements. Basically, with all the agency time that's required to get that plat through and to recording after we get approval from the City Council, there is a very good chance that due to the minimal amount of construction that he has here, that he will be waiting for that plat to catch up, when he could be moving dirt and getting foundations going. Borup: As soon as the rezone is done, you can take out a permit on houses that fit on the existing lot is that -- McKinnon: That's correct. Borup: Right. Boyle: And this is something that isn't new to the city. I don't -- McKinnon: We have done this in the past. Boyle: They have done it in the past, so it's not -- we are not treading new ground here. It's the same old tires on that situation. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 122 of 132 McKinnon: The only thing that we have to work out is the public works and the utility issues. Just a comment real quick on the whole, parallel water lines that Clint was talking about. My understanding -- and Bruce can correct me if I'm wrong or Clint, but the parallel water lines running onto the property and, then, out across, if the person on the front end of that line has to turn off the water, that turns off the water to everybody else that's on part of that parallel line. That's typically why you don't allow them to -- to each have their own or they are all off of -- I guess you would call it a cone, you got the spine and everybody else comes off of that. If you have to shut off the spine, then, nobody gets any water. Borup: Doesn't that depend on where you put the valves? McKinnon: Yes it would. Boyle: I mean, essentially, it would be like running another mainline, you know, that would serve -- you know, we can take a situation -- there is a service here and we are proposing to extend it over there. It may be -- you know, maybe we came off of the service here and ran it -- ran it up to these lots as well, you know, and, then, just like Commissioner Borup stated, it would depend on your valve. I don't know. I mean if the city policy -- McKinnon: One of the issues as well is you have to provide an easement across those private properties to run that across, is you have a bunch of easements strewn about. Borup: Well, there is already an easement there. Boyle: Right ad, like we mentioned, if the city would allow that parallel line, we would be happy to have that option. Borup: Well, that you're going to have to work out with Public Works, I'm assuming. I would -- I mean I haven't studied this, but I would think that maybe some of them you could do that where it was minimal and others where you would need to do the street cuts. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, we will work with them on the ones that work and the ones that don't we will have to -- we will work something out. Parallel lines -- we have jurisdictional limits. You know, right now our jurisdiction is at the meters, that's where our jurisdiction stops and the homeowner's responsibility takes off. If we have parallel mains, that means we are going to have to be -- we are responsible for that main down the sidewalk, all the way across the front of those properties. It's just not a good situation. So -- but, like I said, we will work with them on trying to make the ones that fit work. Some of them just flat don't work. I mean they fall right on the property line -- on the proposed property lines, utilities are getting stacked on top of each other. We have to maintain certain sanitary separation distances from sewer and water and any DEQ standards and it's getting kind of tight in there. I don't see this is a -- something that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 123 of 132 can't be worked out. We will just have to get together with Pinnacle and work out the details. Borup: That sounds -- Boyle: Yes I'm wrapped up here. I appreciate you staying very late or very early thank you. Zaremba: Let's see. While you're there, did I see that you have some of the elevations on the slides also? Would you go to what we have in our packet as the left elevation? That one. Is there any architectural detail or windows or anything that can be put on that one big blank side? Boyle: In fact -- well -- and, hopefully, the developer can correct me if I'm wrong. This particular -- the elevations are probably more representative -- or the pictures -- this particular elevation with this blank wall, the way that we have it proposed, the majority of these, if not all of them, are going to have windows out on the sides to accommodate the bedrooms and things that they have got proposed in there. Zaremba: So nothing like that would face the street? Boyle: No. Centers: That is a garage. Boyle: That is. That's correct. I didn't notice that. That is a garage side there but yes, I don't know that we have any problem with providing architectural features adjacent to the street or on all sides. I don't think that's -- Borup: You can get one window in there. Zaremba: Or even a fake window. Boyle: Right. Zaremba: Something to break it up a little. That was my only question. Borup: On the layout we have don't have -- all the garages are on the common line, too so that picture is not jiving with our plat layout. Boyle: Not exactly. I mean it was just more representative, just showing the kinds of building styles, but -- Borup: Yes. We need to get any testimony on the microphone. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 124 of 132 Zaremba: Let me ask one other question. You're mentioning that these may be retired people who can take off to Arizona every once in awhile. Are your CC&Rs going to have any restrictions about parking RVs on the property? Since that would not be -- Boyle: Yes. Zaremba: It doesn't look like there is space for it and -- Boyle: Right. Zaremba: -- it wouldn't be very attractive. Boyle: Yes. They don't -- I don't believe the developer intends to have any RV parking and in talking with him, the covenants are going to be fairly restrictive. You know, obviously, they are looking for a particular market and a particular look with the fencing and everything else. He's shaking his head, no, that there wouldn't be any RV parking allowed within the subdivision. Borup: Thank you. Most of those that signed up were signed up for. Mrs. Epperson, did you still have some questions? Epperson: My name is Dorothy Epperson. I live at 214 South Outfield Way and my house is directly behind that first parked area on the west side. Yes, right behind there. My only question was regarding -- originally, when we got the notice was, great, we are going back to the two stories again. After the break, I had a chance to speak with the developers and I feel very comfortable with what they are trying to do. It wouldn't be any different if it was residential lots and they built houses there. I like the park setting that they are providing. I don't have any other questions, other than I was afraid it was another two-story building that we were going to go back to originally so I feel very comfortable with what they have proposed. Borup: Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Thank you. Commissioners? Zaremba: I agree, this seems like a big improvement over what we saw the other time. Borup: It definitely answered all the concerns the neighbors had. Zaremba: Yes several of us, even when we did approve it, were holding our noses. This one appears to be a good solution. Borup: Okay. It sounds like our earlier discussion, talking about maybe going ahead and -- well, let's discuss any proposed motions. Would it be proper to not make the motion tonight -- can we make a motion and, then, table it? Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I would recommend against making a formal motion on anything tonight. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 125 of 132 Borup: That's what I was thinking. Wollen: Because you're still dealing with hypotheticals and something that's not approved in the zone. I would -- it's up to you if you want to continue the Public Hearing on this or if you want to close the Public Hearing and, then, table the issues. Borup: That would be my preference, to close the hearing and table it. I think we can maybe discuss what the motion may be. Centers: Well, I think it's straightforward and clean. Borup: We didn't have any -- do we have any changes from the staff comments? Zaremba: Yes. I don't have any issue with the applicant choosing whether they are three-plexes or two-plexes, with a single -- I think that's fine. What was the other question? Borup: Well, the applicant had one comment on a couple of site-specific comments, about abandoning the sewer and water and he's saying he hadn't abandoned any unused. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I have got some suggested language I would like to give you. Borup: On the street cut? Freckleton: On the sewer and water and the street cut. Borup: Okay. That's -- Freckleton: If you'd like that now. Borup: Wouldn't we rather get the information down tonight and not worry about that next time? Zaremba: It would just be a slam-dunk next time. Freckleton: Okay Page 5, staff report, under Preliminary Plat findings and requirements. Item B, under the availability of public services to accommodate the proposed development. I would recommend that we just strike everything after the first sentence. Start there where it says existing and strike all the way through to lots and then down -- Zaremba: And what if we take the first sentence and say staff finds public services are available to accommodate the proposed subdivision with some modifications? Probably be more appropriate. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 126 of 132 Freckleton: That's fine. Okay Site-Specific Number 1, same page. Strike after where it says Scottsdale Subdivision. Strike a commercial subdivision, applicant will be responsibility to abandon existing commercial water and sewer services in accordance with city standards and install new residential services to each lot. Strike all of that so, the comment will simply read, sanitary sewer and water services to this site shall be via existing main lines installed as part of the development of Scottsdale Subdivision. Period. Subdivision designer to coordinate sizing and routing with Public Works Department. Zaremba: So, the final sentence remains? Freckleton: Yes. Okay and, then, Item 2 under Site-Specific Page 6, in regards to the street cut moratorium. I would just simply suggest adding another sentence to the end of that that says any cuts will need to be specifically approved by ACHD. Staff would also like to make a recommendation that with the timing of the applications that we have discussed tonight, that we work with the Clerk's Office to try and put these applications at the first of the agenda for the next meeting. Zaremba: I agree with that. Back on your Page 6, Item 2 any cuts will need to be approved by ACHD. Specifically approved any reason to -- for staff to see that in writing from ACHD? Borup: You got to get a permit to do a street cut -- to do anything in the right of way, I think. Freckleton: Yes and before we got into any construction, the City of Meridian Works with ACHD on pre-construction meetings and that sort of thing and -- Zaremba: It would all come out then. Freckleton: Yes it all comes out then. I wouldn't hold the meeting if I didn't have their approval. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: That's all. Borup: Okay. Remember, we need to keep this to next time to make that motion. Center: And, then, under the CUP was where we would -- you know, the Zoning Department to cooperate, if possible, to issue seven Building Permits as soon as possible. Borup: So, that would be Item Number 7? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 127 of 132 Centers: Yes on the CUP yes. I don't think you're wasting your time coming back in two weeks or whatever it is. Do we have a different owner this time? Unidentified Speaker: Same one. It's been the same one for a long time. Borup: Okay. Did we close these hearings? I don't think we did, did we? Zaremba: We did not. Centers: No, we didn't. Wollen: The Pubic Hearings are still open. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 11 and 12. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearings on Items 11 and 12. Be open for a motion to table both items. Zaremba: We need to vote. Borup: I'm sorry. I'm trying to go home. All in favor? Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we table PP 02-029 and CUP 02-045, both actions requiring to -- relating to Scottsdale Villas Subdivision, until our first meeting in February, which I believe is February 6th , to be the first items on the agenda. Coupled with that, the anticipated rezone to be handled first also. Actually, these two should follow the anticipated rezone. That should be Number 1 and this should be 2 and 3. Centers: Second. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 128 of 132 Centers: And, then, Dave, when these come back, the wording of the agenda items will be more appropriate. I mean because of -- okay. You know what I mean. McKinnon: I'll work with the Clerk's Office on that. I think we also need to change the address from Southwest 7th to Southwest 8th , but we can get all that worked out. Centers: Yes he picked up on that one. Item 13. Discussion of North Meridian Area Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Borup: Okay. Thank you. Next, Item Number 13, we have a three hour discussion on the North Meridian -- the reason this is on the agenda is to -- probably for us to discuss a time when we can hear this, I anticipate it will probably need to be separate from our Regular Meetings. Is that -- that's all we need to do on this tonight and we are going to want time to read it and -- but, then, decide. I guess I'm thinking maybe another Thursday, but let's -- McKinnon: You guys pick a night other than -- Borup: What do the Commissioners prefer? McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, you can pick any night and time, that would be up to you as well. We have done workshops earlier -- Centers: It's not a Public Hearing? McKinnon: It's a Workshop. It can be handled as a Workshop, not as a Public Hearing, unless you would like to jump directly into a Public Hearing, but -- Centers: Why is it coming to us? McKinnon: Why is it coming to you? It's eventually going to become a Public Hearing, so you have the option -- Zaremba: Because of the changes in the ordinances, I believe. Borup: So, one option would be to hold -- one option would be to hold it prior to our Regular Meeting, if that's what the Commissioners prefer. Centers: Well, what's the opinion on the length of time that it would take, Dave? Are you guys going to buy dinner again? Zaremba: Hold it earlier than -- Centers: 6:00 is okay with me. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 129 of 132 McKinnon: We are buying you guys’ shirts. You guys want dinner now? Borup: Do you know how -- Mr. Wardle -- McKinnon: It's going to be long. Borup: Do you know how -- is he doing the presentation? McKinnon: Jon, are you doing the presentation on the North Meridian Area Plan Comp Plan Amendment? Wardle: That's Mike. McKinnon: Mike will be doing it? Borup: Do you have any idea how long his presentation would be? Wardle: He's long-winded, so -- McKinnon: Just for the record, that was Mike's son saying his dad is long winded. Borup: We just want to know how much time to schedule for it. Wardle: I would assume that his presentation would be a half an hour and based on your questions at that point -- I think he could probably cover everything that needs to be covered -- Centers: For the workshop. Wardle: For the workshop and, you know -- so, if you can give him a half an hour of time for that discussion and, then, whatever questions you have after that point. I'm sure there will be questions associated with what he presents. Zaremba: I'm a little bit familiar with the North Meridian Area Plan. I don't anticipate a whole lot of objections, but if the goal is for us to make amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinances, will those have been thought out and suggested to us or is it up to us to find where it needs to be changed? McKinnon: Well, it's going to be handled just like you would handle other applications. There will be a staff report with some recommendations from staff. We don't catch everything, there may be some things that you guys bring up or people from the audience bring up that we might not have caught. In listening to what Jon had to say, you know, about how long he thinks his dad will take and questions you might have, in hearing the idea that this could be handled as a workshop prior to a hearing, that might be an option where we could have you guys meet prior to a hearing and spend an hour and a half -- start at 5:30, spend an hour and a half before the hearing, you guys could Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 130 of 132 hear it, and, then, we could schedule it for a meeting subsequent to that. Or if you guys want to have more information, more time, you could schedule it again for another workshop. That might be the easiest way of handling it. Borup: That seems to make sense at this point. I'm thinking an hour and a half is probably what we would need to cover ourselves. McKinnon: Jon just informed me that if you guys do a workshop, they will bring pizza for dinner, so -- Rohm: Good. McKinnon: So -- Borup: Okay. The next question is a date. Zaremba: If we are coupling this with another meeting -- Borup: If it's in February, we are looking at the 6th and the 20th . Zaremba: I would personally prefer the 20th . I would find it difficult to get here earlier on the 6th . I will be out of town and coming back the last minute, just barely making it to the meeting. Borup: That would give us plenty of time to read what we have got here, too. Zaremba: Not that I want to put it off, because I think this is sort of urgent, but I wouldn't -- I wouldn't be here that soon. Borup: Does it need regular notification? McKinnon: The workshop we would have to notice it. It doesn't require the same noticing standards as a Public Hearing. Borup: Is that two weeks or -- McKinnon: The Public Hearing will be noticed as well. Borup: Well, all we have got is two weeks if it was on the 6th . The 20th we have got plenty of time. McKinnon: I think the 20th would help out, but by pushing it back a little bit later it would be helpful, because, then, we could get comments from the Smart Growth and from the Realtors Association, BCA, all of those groups as well. I would write up comments for you at that time, too. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 131 of 132 Borup: So the 20th ? McKinnon: 20th what time? Borup: 5:30? McKinnon: Do you have that, Jessica? Borup: That's about as early as anyone could get here anyway. McKinnon: 5:30 on the 20th of February and Jon's here, so -- Borup: Okay. Centers: Well, we will remind each other at the next meeting, too. Borup: Yes. Centers: The 20th at 5:30. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman. Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we table the discussion on the North Meridian Area Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment to a 5:30 P.M. workshop on the 20th of February. Borup: And that was -- I mean the intention was not to discuss it tonight at all. It was -- I just told them to put it on the agenda, so we could discuss a time so, I don't know if that's even being tabled. We are just going to set that up as a workshop. Zaremba: Okay. Then, Mr. Chairman, I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:05 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting January 16, 2003 Page 132 of 132 / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK