Loading...
2003 07-03Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 3, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Acting Chairman Jerry Centers. Members Present: Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, and Michael Rohm. Members Absent: Chairman Keith Borup and Leslie Mathes. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nick Wollen, Jessica Johnson, Anna Powell, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Wendy Kirkpatrick, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll Call Attendance: ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers ___O___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___O___ Chairman Keith Borup Centers: We will begin our Regular Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for July 3rd . The first order of business roll call, which will be a little easier tonight. Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of June 19, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Centers: Due to the three Commissioners you see before you tonight, we have a quorum on the evening before a major holiday. I don't want any gold stars or anything, but we are here. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I'd like to put that off and continue on with the Consent Agenda. Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 19, 2003, Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting. Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: Motion and second to approve the minutes, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 2 of 91 Centers: Regarding the adoption of the agenda, we have a full agenda tonight. We have a policy of not starting an application after the stroke of midnight, for numerous reasons, one of which concerns sleep, but primarily because we really can't give good attention and full attention to an application after that time, it just becomes too laborious and just gets too late. If there are any applicants that would like to postpone until our next meeting, July 17th , we would be happy to accommodate you, because we have a small agenda at that time. All you would have to do is give notice to the assistant clerk here. I don't see anyone jumping. Just to notify you, we won't start any new applications after the stroke of midnight. If we start one at five to 12:00, we will, of course, finish it. Item 4. Public Hearing: CUP 03-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an ancillary drive-thru for a full-service bank facility and for a temporary bank facility in a C-G zone for D. L. Evans Bank by D. L. Evans Bank – 2560 East Fairview Avenue: Centers: Okay. I would like to start with the first item on the agenda tonight, the Public Hearing for CUP 03-023, it's a request for a Conditional Use Permit for D.L. Evans Bank and I think Mr. Siddoway has some comments on that. Siddoway: Thank you, Chairman Centers, Members of the Commission. The subject property is on Fairview Road just west of Eagle, next to the Louie's Restaurant site, which you may be familiar with. Hickory Way also abuts adjacent to the property. This is a site photo taken a few years ago with the Capital Christian Center existing subdivision to the north and Louie's is in the out parcel in the center of this. The proposal is for a new D.L. Evans Bank site. You should have a staff report with a transmittal date of June 26th for today's hearing date. They are proposing a full service bank building with three drive-thrus, as well as an outside ATM lane. In addition to that, they are proposing a temporary unit that would be located in this location on the property. They would be using this early on to get the bank facility up and running during the construction of the full service bank facility. Upon completion of that facility, the temporary unit would be removed and replaced with landscaping and parking. It is the applicant's intention to have the permanent structure completed within 12 months of beginning use of the site with the temporary unit. I would also point out that the zoning on this, while based on the vicinity map, appears to be L-O. There was a recent Rezone that's not yet showing up in the assessor's database that does change the zoning of these front parcels to C-G. There has also been a Final Plat approved by the City Council, that plat is not yet recorded for the subdivision, which is why we are using the entire site for noticing purposes, although I would point out that the project site is, actually, the corner on the east side of Louie's and down right here. The entire project fits in this area. The main issues to be covered are in the special considerations on Page 4. Item 1 is, actually, taken care of, it has to do with the plat not being recorded and staff recommended that the applicant submit a letter into the record stating that they are willing to take the risk associated with that situation. They have done so with a letter dated January 25th and have submitted into the record, you should have a copy, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 3 of 91 and it's on VRS Architect's letterhead. Item Number 2 has to do with the parking lot. City Ordinance requires drive aisles to be 25 feet wide for two-way traffic next to 90 degree parking and the parking stalls to be at least nine feet wide and 19 feet deep. The proposed layout has 17-foot deep stalls on the south, 18-foot deep stalls on the west, and the staff condition is to modify the Site Plan to comply with the 19-foot stall requirement. Item number three is landscaping. Let me back up just a little bit. What we have submitted -- since the staff report was written, the applicant has submitted some revised Site Plans, which you should have copies of and have been incorporated into this presentation. We have a -- what you see now is the Site Plan for the temporary setup with the temporary unit here and the parking through here during construction of this facility. The landscaping that they would intend to do as part of that temporary unit would be the front street buffer landscaping and landscaping directly adjacent to the drive-thru, which they are proposing in this location for the temporary unit. Now, upon completion of the building and abandonment of the temporary unit, that drive-thru would go away and be replaced with parking and landscaping and, then, the drive-thrus would be located over on the east side of the property. Based on these revised Site Plans, they have addressed the issue of the evergreen trees in the buffer. The only remaining issue that I saw in looking at these was that we would want three additional trees in the planters that are shown -- there is three planters shown that have no trees in them, we would ask that a tree be added in each of those. Item Number 4 is the Site Plans, the original submittal. They did not match between the two. That has been corrected and is taken care of with these revised plans. Number 5 is the temporary use of the structure. As mentioned before, they state that they intend to have it completed within 12 months. To allow for some flexibility, staff recommends having a sunset of 18 months on that temporary use and requiring it to go away in at least that amount of time. We also would recommend that upon removal of that, that we have a set minimum time frame in which the permanent landscaping and parking can be completed. They have stated that they intend to have it done within a month. I have stated in my condition to give it some flexibility to have it done within at least three months. I believe that's all the issues. I will stand for any questions. Centers: Yes. Mr. Siddoway, the advertising issue is a non-issue? The noticing issue, I should say. Siddoway: It is. Earlier today, we had thought we had a noticing issue on this project, given that the vicinity map that was prepared was for the Louie's site and not the overall site. We did do a formal check, ran a property owner's list for the overall site, and verified that it had correctly been done so, there is no issue. Centers: Good. Page 5, Item 8 down at the bottom, second line. Would we want to insert all remaining site improvements, including landscaping, shall be installed within three months? Siddoway: That would be fine. I would include that in there, but if you wanted to be specific to parking and landscaping improvements, that would be -- you bet. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 4 of 91 Centers: Commission, any questions for staff? Zaremba: Not from me. Rohm: No, I don't. Centers: Is the applicant here? I thought we had a dress code? Strite: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Centers: Let me ask you first. Strite: Yes, sir. Centers: Did you handle the development for D.L. Evans at the corner of Cole and Emerald? Strite: Yes, sir, we did. Centers: Okay. Excellent. Strite: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. I'm here with Andrew Davis, the architect actually in charge here. We have been here before and I trust we will be back again, but I'd like to address only one condition, quite frankly. The staff has been excellent to work with and, as Steve has already pointed out, the majority of these items have already been addressed and I trust in the motion made and I'm hoping it will be for approval, that those Conditions 2, 6, and 7 will be addressed. I do have a problem with Item Number 3. For those of you who have been on the Commission for some time, you probably will find this very repetitious, but everything that we have done here in the city in the last five years we have asked that the parking spaces be 17 feet. As I was mentioning to staff a little earlier, the Urban Land Institute does suggest that the average automobile today has a wheelbase to bumper of two-foot, six inches. It seems to me, instead of putting another 2.6 inches of asphalt, in most cases we can replace that with landscaping. I think probably the case at hand is if you go out to your own parking lot out here, you will see you have a concrete bumper and, then, you have a redundant curbing, it makes it very difficult for snow removal, it makes it difficult for maintenance in general. As a matter of fact, it's a great place for paper collection I noticed out here. Without being extremely redundant, we'd ask that that condition be erased and that we move forward as we normally do with 17-foot spaces. We have increased the width of the walks to accommodate those in the landscaping. Of course, it does not become a problem. I think with that -- and I believe that, Mr. Chair, you mentioned it on Item Number 8, including landscaping, we certainly do not have a problem with that. I think with that, since it's a long agenda, I will make it short. If there are any questions, I would happy to answer them. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 5 of 91 Centers: Commission? Zaremba: Yes. We have had -- specifically on Item 3 that you were pointing out, I do remember discussions with you and other applicants. The requirement has been that if you have a 17-foot space you're guaranteed that there is an additional two feet in either the driveway or the landscape and that accomplishes what you're talking about, not having to have that extra bumper there, which I agree with you makes snow removal easier. If we made that requirement that it could be 17 feet, how wide are your sidewalks around there and do you have the extra two feet in your sidewalks? Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, we do have the space. Right now, I believe those are dimensioned at six feet, with a two-foot overhang, which would allow you a four-foot walk. There is enough space between the building and the sidewalk, both on the west side and on the south side, to accommodate another foot, allowing for a five- foot sidewalk -- actually, a total of seven-foot, excuse me, but a five-foot clear. Zaremba: Is that acceptable to staff? I think we have found that acceptable in other locations. Siddoway: Mr. Strite, you would pick up the extra foot adjacent to the building for the sidewalk? Is that what you were just saying? Strite: Steve that would be correct. We have enough space between our building and the landscaping there, both on the west side and on the south side, to accommodate an additional foot. If you bring the other view foil up of the original Site Plan -- excuse me - - the recently submitted Site Plan, you will see that it's dimensioned at six feet -- that's difficult to read there. It may be clearer in your packages, but we presently have six feet of sidewalk. We are prepared to make those seven feet. It's not a problem. Centers: Any other questions? Zaremba: Not from me. Centers: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: No. Centers: Mr. Strite, you referred to Items 2, 6, and 7 and maybe it jumped right over me. Strite: I think, as the staff has already explained, Items 2, 6, and 7 have been provided. They are in package tonight and I'm just suggesting that in your motion if you would just delete those three as suggested by staff. Centers: Let me ask you this. It's not necessarily relevant, but the bank that I referred to at that corner, what were the parking spaces there? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 6 of 91 Strite: Those parking spaces, Mr. Chair, were 17 feet. Centers: Throughout? Strite: As a matter of fact, the City of Boise has initiated an ordinance that allows for a minimum two-foot overhang. Centers: Do you know the operation of the bank? Are they going to -- is it going to be a full service bank where they may have considerable traffic? Strite: Mr. Chair, this is going to be a full service bank. That's correct. Centers: Because anymore I don't see a lot of traffic at any of the banks. It's mostly drive-thru. Strite: I would think with the interest rates that it would be rather busy. Maybe it's just the mortgage companies. Centers: They don't tend to utilize all of their parking, let me put it that way. Strite: Mr. Chair, I think that's an astute observation. I think -- I have to agree with you, I think that the bank says it's something like 55 to 65 percent of their business is through the drive-thru. I'm sure you're correct in that assumption. Centers: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Strite: Thank you. Centers: Is there anyone else here to testify on this application, either for or against? Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Yes. Siddoway: As far as deleting two, six, and seven, no problems, other than I would like to keep in the first sentence of Number 2, which just says the expiration provisions. They did submit the letter into the record already, so that could be deleted. Centers: Good point. We have that. I would entertain a motion. Zaremba: Mr. chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 4. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 7 of 91 Centers: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Centers: Discussion? Zaremba: I have seen in places around Boise where D.L. Evans has done exactly what they are proposing to do here, which is a temporary building while they are building the permanent building and there doesn't seem to have been a problem there. They move along quickly and get their thing done and remove the temporary building, so -- Centers: I would tend to agree. Zaremba: So, with the remarks of staff and the modifications that we have done to those, I don't see a problem with this. Centers: Very good. Rohm: Yes. I concur with that. Zaremba: In that case, Mr. Chairman. Centers: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, CUP 03-023, request for a Conditional Use Permit for is ancillary drive-thru for a full service bank facility and for a temporary bank facility in a C-G zone for D.L. Evans Bank by D.L. Evans Bank at 2560 East Fairview Avenue. To include all staff comments of their letter dated June 26th , with the following exceptions. Beginning on Page 5, conditions of approval, Item 2, the first sentence remains and the second sentence can be removed, as it has been satisfied by the BRS letter dated June 25, 2003. Paragraph 3 can be modified to read. All 90 degree parking stalls shall be at least nine feet wide and 17 feet deep, abutting sidewalks of seven-foot width and the other two paragraphs remain the same. Centers: Would you be amenable to state minimum 17? Zaremba: Yes. Centers: Very good. Zaremba: At least -- we will say at least 17 feet. Centers: Very good. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 8 of 91 Zaremba: And abutting sidewalks of seven-foot width. Paragraph 6 can be deleted as satisfied. Paragraph 7 can be deleted as satisfied. Paragraph 8 the first sentence stays as is. The second sentence will have an addition so that it reads beginning all remaining site improvements, including landscaping, shall be installed. The rest of it remains the same. End of motion. Rohm: I will second that. Centers: We have a motion and second to approve Item 4 on the agenda, all in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 5. Public Hearing: RZ 03-007 Request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook – 921 West 2nd Street: Item 6. Public Hearing: CUP 03-026 Request for Conditional Use Permit to remove existing house and construct four apartments, 2 story with bedrooms on upper level, and four single garages attached in a proposed O-T zone for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook – 921 West 2nd Street: Centers: Moving along. Our next item on the agenda -- I would like to open both Public Hearings for Items Number 5 and Number 6. Item 5 is a request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for Schroeder Apartments. Item 6 is a Conditional Use Permit to remove existing house and construct four apartments, two story, with bedrooms for Schroeder Apartments. Open with staff comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is a proposal to Rezone a lot in Old Town from R-4 and to put on that property a 4-plex apartment. It is located at the end of West 2nd Street just north of Pine where it dead-ends into the Meridian Elementary School. You can see the subject property outlined on the vicinity map. This is an aerial photo of the area. You can see the open play area for Meridian Elementary. This is 2nd Street and the stub. There is an existing 4-plex that is on the lot just to the south and the proposal is to place a new 4-plex just north of it at that location. There is an alley that runs from Pine Street in at the rear of the property as well. You may remember that this is in the vicinity of the Schmeckpeper day care project that came through recently. This is just a simple diagram to show the improvements that they intend to do as required by the Ada County Highway District, plus some additional that the applicant is proposing and is willing to do on his own. I do address this in the staff report as well, but just to show you on here, this is the subject property up in here, this is the existing 4-plex. Pine Street is down below. The dark lines over here are where the applicant is proposing to do curb, gutter, and sidewalk in compliance with ACHD requirements adjacent to the subject property and continuing down in front of the existing 4-plex. Both of these lots are under the same ownership currently. They would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 9 of 91 also, then, end the sidewalk at that point and continue their curb and gutter down to tie in with Pine Street. In addition, the alley is not currently paved and they are being asked by ACHD to pave that alley and they are in agreement to do so. This is the Site Plan for the project. The property line runs right about through here. This is the existing 4-plex below. The 4-plex apartments would all have ground level entries and two of the units would have parking on the 2nd Street side, two of them would have parking off the alley. Each unit would receive one garage and one open parking space adjacent to it. The proposed Rezone for this, from R-4 to Old Town, is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which does show this lot as an Old Town lot. These are the elevations for the proposed 4-plex. You can see the two doors here, two doors here. The garage is extending out on the sides. I have floor plans available should you wish to discuss them and I just wish to point out a few things in the staff report. The first item is on Page 5. The only condition of approval related to the Rezone that needs any discussion is on the trees. As you can see in the site photo there is -- there were a number of large existing trees on the site. They have been since removed. The ordinance dealing with removal of existing trees would suggest that a caliper-for-caliper mitigation is required. That's going to be difficult to do, given the constraints of the size of the site. However, we are proposing that they work with staff to maximize the number of trees on the site and to upgrade the size of those from the two inch caliper currently required as the minimum in the ordinance, to be at least two and a half, to try and help get some more plant material in there. The other items are on the special considerations on Page 7. The first one deals with the off-site improvements, which is the curb, gutter, and sidewalk that are beyond the extent of this project. ACHD does mention them in their report, they do support them, but because they are off site, ACHD mentions that they cannot require them. The city has the option of requiring them as part of a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has generously offered to do this. We would just like to make sure it is done and would ask the applicant to address the willingness to make them a condition of approval on the project. That is in their site- specific condition Number 2. Number 2 under special considerations, on Page 7, deals with setbacks. There are some small setbacks proposed for the project. Staff does recommend approval of the setbacks as shown, but we do raise them for the Commission's approval and to any discussion related to that that you would see fit to do. Item Number 3 on Page 8 is walkways. Simply, this is the walkway that connects from the parking stalls to the front doors. It is currently shown as a five-foot walk. We are recommending making it a four-foot walk in order to just punch in a little bit more green into there. Number 4 is the fire turn around. The fire turn around is shown just below the project. It's, actually, on the lot that has the existing 4-plex on it. Since it is an off-site improvement, we are recommending that the applicant submit a recorded easement for that turn around prior to issuance of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the new 4-plex, and item Number 5, the trash enclosure. I have been -- had several discussions with SSC recently. I, just this afternoon, received some new comments based on a meeting that Steve Sedlacek had with Mr. John Cook, the applicant's representative, today, which I'm going to submit to you in the record. Mr. Sedlacek has asked that we include these comments into the conditions of approval, simply that they are working -- brief history. The original proposal was to put a trash enclosure and storage shed on the west side of the property up against the alley. That structure would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 10 of 91 straddle the property line and would be accessed from the alley. The Sanitary Service Corporation had concerns about their ability to access this with the alley and their inability to turn around from there and didn't want to have to back out from there onto Pine Street. They have asked that the trash enclosure be moved over to be accessed from 2nd Street. The applicant does not wish to put it right at the entrance of the project right here and are proposing to put it south on the existing 4-plex site, which would require a joint use agreement to be recorded. That if these two properties -- one of the two properties or both were ever sold to other owners, that there is a recorded agreement in place that would allow this lot to continue using that. It is some distance and I have some concerns about the fact that these folks, when they want to take their trash out, have to come out and down the street to get to the dumpster that they need to access, but we can have the applicant address that. Nonetheless, the remaining issues as far as Sanitary Services is concerned, are not project killers at this point they have just asked that these four conditions that are handwritten on here be incorporated and that they would work out an approved design prior to submitting for a certificate of zoning compliance. Centers: Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Could that be something that we could give the staff the authority to work out at the staff level? Siddoway: Yes. Absolutely. We -- something that -- like that we could certainly work out prior to issuing them a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. It's standard procedure for that certificate to require sign off of Sanitary Services Corporation on their trash enclosure anyway, so we will -- it will be caught, then. Centers: So, necessarily mentioning all these conditions wouldn't be necessary, we could just give mention that that way that staff would be given the authority to sign off on SSI's intended use or whatever. Siddoway: Right. I -- yes. I would recommend going ahead and including his comments. I don't know that you have to read them into the record, but just reference the fact and we can make sure they are incorporated. Centers: Sorry to interrupt. Siddoway: Oh, not a problem. The last item, item number six, is the Landscape Planters. Typically, for a commercial apartment project off of a local street you would see a street buffer between the road right of way and the beginning of the structure or any parking given the site limitations here that's not possible. We are proposing a couple of things for alternative compliance. One would be between the two garages, punching in -- you can see they have added a planter here. We would want to do something similar in scope, but narrower, between the two. It looks like it would be too Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 11 of 91 narrow to accommodate a tree, but, nonetheless, could at least get some green space out here to break up the expansive asphalt. Finally, they are showing -- if you follow this line, this is a parking space. Their parking space curb wraps up at this point and down and we are just suggesting that this should come straight out until it reaches this curb and that this area be given over to landscaping. I believe that is it and I will stand for any questions. Centers: Thank you. Mr. Siddoway, I noticed -- first of all, you wouldn't happen to have a picture of the house that's going to be removed? Siddoway: I do not. Centers: Okay. Siddoway: I don't know. The applicant may and, if so, we can project it up. Centers: I noticed, you know, on the petitions that were signed that there were just a number of people wanting to see that eyesore removed and on those petitions, it mentioned townhomes on each and every one. What we have is a four unit apartment complex, one owner, they are not to be sold separately; correct? Siddoway: Correct. Centers: Okay. Because each petition mentions townhomes and there is a difference. Big difference. Because it could be condo minimized, you could call it, and sell them separately, so -- Siddoway: Yes. This proposal is to keep it under one ownership on a single lot. Centers: Very good. Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yes, sir, I do have a couple. Mr. Siddoway, on Page 10 of the staff comments, standard requirement, Item Number 6, it says provide five-foot pedestrian walkways in accordance with City Ordinance. However, on Page 9, Item 3 of the site- specific asks for, as you have previously mentioned, the four feet walkways going to the front doors. Siddoway: If you turn -- Zaremba: There seems to be a contradiction there. Should we delete Number 6 under the general -- Siddoway: Instead of deleting it, I would just add a clarification. If you go to Number 3 on Page 8 -- Zaremba: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 12 of 91 Siddoway: -- it talks there that staff recommends narrowing the five-foot walkways along the south side of the building to four feet and, then, the last sentence says sidewalks adjacent to the street should remain five feet wide. The intent was to widen the access to the front for -- but still require five-foot sidewalks adjacent to the street. I think if we just modified Number 6 on Page 10 to say provide five-foot pedestrian walkways, we change that to sidewalks adjacent to 2nd Street that would be fine. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: Any other questions? Zaremba: I do have one additional question. Centers: Okay. Go right ahead. Zaremba: Okay. This is referring to the fire chief's comments in bold letters. He says an additional fire hydrant will be required to be installed at West 2nd and Pine. My question is by whom? Siddoway: The applicant would be required to do that and they have been -- I would have them address it, because they have been talking with Chief Silva directly. Zaremba: Okay. I have another question. Oh, the other was about the trash enclosure and that's thoroughly discussed so far, so -- Centers: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Well, I wasn't so sure about that, the trash enclosure being thoroughly discussed. I'm still kind of thinking like the staff, that it's too far away from this proposed 4-plex and I'd like to have staff's comments. Would you like to see it closer or have you talked to the applicant and where are we going with this? Siddoway: I think we should hear from the applicant first. Like I said, I do have some concerns about the distance. I know the applicant does have some concerns about having it right at the entrance, so I think it will need to be weighed. Rohm: And maybe we will just listen to the applicant's proposal. Siddoway: Yes. Rohm: Sounds good. Centers: Okay. Is the applicant here and prepared? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 13 of 91 Schroeder: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioner. John Schroeder. And I do have my architect here as well. Centers: You need to talk right into the microphone. Schroeder: I'm sorry. John Schroeder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Centers: Give your address, too, please. Schroeder: 3786 South Suntree Place in Boise. I'll just briefly respond. Those are pictures of the current home. With regard to the trash enclosure, we are flexible in that. The sole purpose of doing what we are doing is for 30 years everyone, including my neighbors, we all have trash cans and everyone leaves them out front on West 2nd Street for virtually the entire week and dogs get into them. We wanted to corral this problem and make it look nice, dogs can’t get in it, and everyone has got a nice facility to use. We are flexible in positioning it. The only thing I was worried about was putting a trash enclosure on the tail end of West 2nd Street up against the school. Oh, thank you. Centers: You need to -- you need to get the microphone. Schroeder: I'm sorry. I didn't want to put it at the end of 2nd up against the school, because people driving in would see the dumpsters. Putting the trash enclosure in this area would not be satisfactory, because we are putting that sidewalk in and landscaping behind it, which would look very nice coming in on West 2nd . Frankly, I wanted to hide it as best I could and, certainly, recently understand the Sanitary Services. This is more difficult. I thought it would work, but it wouldn't. Those big trucks just wouldn't -- even with the improvements we are making I don't think it's satisfactory. We are willing to work with staff to work it out, we just want to make it as sightly as possible, and the trashcans just are not working. They could work, I suppose, because each party has a garage and they can just keep it in their garage and, then, during the pick-up day they could bring it out. That would work. These people would, obviously, have to bring it further. That's why this idea came through. We are willing to -- and, then, putting it here, I really didn't like that idea, because of the people and the neighborhoods, this seemed to be the site that was the least exposed to all the neighbors, but we are certainly willing to work with whatever staff would like to do. Then, just a couple brief comments we are willing to put in the fire hydrant. That's a substantial expenditure and it's a good idea. It would be on West 2nd and Pine. The fire marshal desires that. Frankly, I'm for it, because the locations of the existing fire hydrants are quite some distance and that's not satisfactory, so, correct, where staff is signaling would be a new fire hydrant right there. Then, the significant improvements on the curb, gutter, and sidewalk, we have been looking forward to getting that done, because this area doesn't have any sidewalks, except on Pine, and we need some definition and the drainage is a problem without the gutters. With that, I would turn it over to Mr. Cook. Thank you. Appreciate it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 14 of 91 Cook: Mr. Chairman, my name is John Cook and I'm the architect representing Mr. Schroeder and Margaret Schroeder. We have put our time and effort into developing a 4-plex to fit the tight constraints of the site. You can see that our challenge was working with setbacks and I realize that's going to be an item that you'll probably want to discuss. We looked at the existing street width and being able to create a plan here that would give them at least two parking spaces for each tenant. The alley is pretty well defined by the existing amount of property that was allocated for an alley. We are looking at being able to pull the vehicles into the garage and the position of the side parking and being able to back out and resume the direction back into West Pine Street. Our position in regard to walks, we addressed basically with ACHD. We have a five-foot sidewalk on the frontages and we will reduce those down to four feet, as staff recommended. Again, the fire hydrant, I have met with Public Works, they have indicated that the applicant -- the owner will be required to provide engineering and pay for the cost of installing that second hydrant. I have sat down with Fire Marshal and we went through the new IBC fire code and 4-plexes require two hydrants under the new code, so that's -- we are only addressing that. We do have a colored illustration here, which represents the color combinations that we would like to propose for the project. I can bring that forward if you like and show you what we propose to do there. I realize we have got a double application here, Numbers 5 and 6, the Rezone and CUP. I'm open to any questions you might have. Centers: Commission, any questions of Mr. Cook or Mr. Schroeder, for that matter? Zaremba: Yes. Just carrying on with what Mr. Schroeder was talking about and I guess the big subject for tonight is going to be the trash enclosure. I agree with not having it out by the street on the new piece of property. It would seem to me that it would be more convenient for all of the people in both 4-plexes to have it somewhere between the properties. It would also seem to me, even though this is not a real attractive location, that some attractive enclosure could be put around it and that would solve SSI's problem, they would be able to drive in, pick it up, back out, and, actually, leave 2nd Street driving forward. I guess I heard Mr. Schroeder's comments that it would not be very attractive to be in this area, but that seems to be the most practical location and I guess I ask for your comment. Cook: As a design professional, I try to keep trash enclosures out of the landscape corridors. We got a land corridor between the two 4-plexes and with that you're going to have a natural breezeway through there and wind and that's when you -- when you put a trash enclosure there it's not just sight, but you're going to have odors. I think that would be probably a key item with whether it's a trash dumpster or whether it's cans with lids, I'm concerned, basically, for the amenity and the odors that come from trash cans, even though you have the weekly pick-up, just having it in that corridor. If we had to, we can split the trash enclosure, possibly, with the 4-plex here to the south, having four cans for those particular tenants and possibly have something maybe a little further north and extend that landscape to go along with that curvature in that curb and gutter, possibly to put an enclosure in that area and we will screen that maybe with trees and shrubs. I mean it's open for discussion and, as Mr. Schroeder has indicated, we will Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 15 of 91 work with staff. I'm sure there are at least two or three solutions and we can come up with one that will satisfy everyone. Centers: Well, yes, that's my comment. I think I would be -- I would want to include SSI's comments and, then, let staff work it out, because I don't have happen to be a trash enclosure engineer and, then, let them work it out at that time. Zaremba: I can be comfortable with that. Rohm: The only thing I wanted to mention is the location down in the south property down here. It seems a long ways away from the new 4-plex and that would be the least desired location, from my perspective. Centers: And I would agree, Commissioner Rohm, and I think staff understands that and wants it on the site, too. On the property because if you went with that, you would have to have -- call it a cross-access agreement to that and we didn't require that, so -- correct, Mr. Siddoway? Siddoway: Am I hearing that the Commission would prefer to see it happen somehow in this location right in here, if possible? Centers: On the property. Cook: Adjacent to the -- Zaremba: I was leaning toward that, but the objection of the smell in a landscape corridor -- Cook: Yes. It's not going to be attractive. Centers: What do you have for the existing 4-plex? Where is that? Cook: Trash cans out of the garages, I believe. Schroeder: They are trash cans and they are right in here in this location and the former owner had trash cans up in that area and, then, the neighbors would have trash cans along West 2nd . Rohm: I think it's suffice to say that you can work it out with staff, but, you know, it's our comments that we would prefer to see it adjacent to the property, as opposed to down at the south corner and that's as far as we need take it tonight, I think. Zaremba: I'm comfortable with staff working it out and I support the comment that I would like to see it equally convenient to both properties. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 16 of 91 Cook: There was one comment in there on conditions about signage. Mr. Schroeder does not indicate that he wants any -- has any desire to put up a permanent sign identifying the project. There is no signage on the project. Centers: Mr. Cook, you and Mr. Schroeder have read the staff comments? Cook: Yes. Centers: And the way I hear it, you're in agreement with the entirety and we have addressed the trash enclosure and -- Cook: That's correct. We don't have any problem with any of the conditions of approval. Centers: Very good. Any other questions? Zaremba: I would just emphasize the observation that Commissioner Centers made, that there are a number of petitions and letters signed by several people that show that you and Mr. Schroeder have done a lot of community work in spreading the word and I commend you for doing that. I think it's wonderful that we have been provided with all these testaments in favor of what you're doing and that you have taken the time to go talk to your neighbors. Cook: Mr. Schroeder has been a good neighbor and it's my understanding that he has, in the last month, become a little better neighbor. Centers: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Cook. We have one individual that signed up that would like to speak. Charlene Rokovitz. Rokovitz: My name is Charlene Rokovitz. I own the property 918 West 3rd . 918 West 3rd , just across the alleyway from -- west of Mr. Schroeder. Centers: Right in there? Rokovitz: Yes. Okay. The -- right up -- up -- right there. Mr. Schroeder met with my husband, explained all the plans and everything, and my husband come home very excited that they were very good. He was very impressed with them. At the time, though, nothing was said about this being rezoned to Old Town. We are just a little concerned that because of the problems we have had in the past -- and you all know what they were -- that this is going to open up the neighborhood on Old Town. Is this going to be strictly just this one property? Is it -- how is this going to work, so that we don't end up going to battle again in a month or so? Centers: Yes. Let me interrupt and let Mr. Siddoway or someone appropriate answer that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 17 of 91 Siddoway: The Old Town District, as it currently stands, would require a Conditional Use Permit for almost any use. I believe your concerns were if it were to try and go to a day care or commercial in some fashion and have a larger impact in terms of traffic. Rokovitz: Well, is this one piece of property going to open up the rest of the neighborhood to just what you said? Siddoway: The Comprehensive Plan is what opens it up. The Comprehensive Plan shows this entire area as Old Town and would support a Rezone to Old Town for adjacent properties, whether or not this one goes through. Rokovitz: So, would we still have a say in -- if something else opened up? Because, otherwise, we are against the Old Town, but -- the apartments we are not against. We think they are going to be, you know, just fine. There is not a problem with the apartments it's just the rezoning of it that's got us really worried. Siddoway: The apartments are prohibited in the current zone of R-4, so they have to rezone it in order to do the apartments. If you look at the Comp Plan for direction as to what it should be Rezoned to, it states that it should be Rezoned to Old Town and the Old Town's district, those apartments require a Conditional Use Permit, which is why we have the application for both the Rezone and the Conditional Use tonight. If they were to try and change the use under the current ordinance, it would require another Conditional Use Permit and everyone within 300 feet would receive notice of that as well. Rokovitz: Okay. If it is gone through as Old Town, which I'm sure it will, it will just be the one property? Siddoway: This is just for the single property. Zaremba: Yes. I would clarify that you may have to come back again -- any of your other neighbors that apply for a rezoning, but they would have to go through the same kind of Public Hearing. Rokovitz: Well, like I said, that -- Zaremba: Changing this property does not change any other piece of property without somebody else making an application. Rokovitz: Okay. We were just really concerned, because this is taking its toll on us and we do think the apartments will be very nice. He's been very cooperative and I think they will be very nice. Centers: Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify in this application? All right. Any other questions, Commission? I'll entertain a motion. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 18 of 91 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 5 and 6 of our agenda. Centers: Motion to close the Public Hearing. Do I hear a second? Rohm: Second. Centers: All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Centers: Discussion? Zaremba: I do think it's appropriate for the Rezone to be the Old Town zone, it looks like a good project to me, and we have testimony from neighbors and personal testimony that that part of the project is acceptable. I would be willing to leave it up to staff and applicant and SSI to work out the trash solution. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: That seems appropriate. Centers: Right. I would agree. It's just -- it's going to remove an eyesore and put up some good base there. I think -- Zaremba: It is a small piece of property and I think they have done everything they can with it to shoe horn a good project in there. Centers: I think as long as we include SSI's comments and put them in the record and, then, let staff determine where they want that located I think that would be my opinion. Zaremba: I'm prepared to make a motion, if that's appropriate. Centers: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item five on our agenda, RZ 03-007, request for a Rezone of .165 acres from R-4 to O-T zones for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook, 921 West 2nd Street, to include all staff comments of the memorandum, transmittal date June 26, 2003. Rohm: I will second that. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 5 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 19 of 91 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, CUP 03-026, request for a Conditional Use Permit to remove existing house and construct four apartments, two story, with bedrooms on upper level, and four single garages attached in a proposed O-T zone for Schroeder Apartments by H. John Cook, 921 West 2nd Street. To include all staff comments of their memo, transmittal date June 26, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 9, Paragraph 4 the first sentence stands. The second sentence shall be modified to say: Regarding the trash enclosure storage shed, the applicant will work out with staff and SSI a satisfactory arrangement considering SSI's concerns that the enclosure size will need to be adequate. A road service damage waiver will need to be signed between SSC and the owner. The enclosure will need a concrete floor and apron and drivable hard surface as necessary between the enclosure and any vehicle turn around. The point being there that the applicant and staff will work together to resolve that issue. Then, I would -- on Page 9, I would add an Item 12 that says install new fire hydrant at Pine and 2nd , in coordination with the staff and the Fire Department. On Page 10, Item Paragraph 6, is modified to read provide five-foot wide pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to 2nd Street in accordance with city ordinance. End of motion. Centers: Excuse me. Did you mention Page 9 Paragraph 12? Zaremba: I added a Paragraph 12 to require the fire hydrant. Centers: Okay. Okay. Correct. Mr. Siddoway. Siddoway: Just one comment. On Item 4, Page 9, when we were talking about the trash enclosure, I'd like to keep the second sentence in about the joint use agreement, because even if this is intended to be a joint use facility, I would just like to make sure we keep that in, in addition to the language that you offered. Zaremba: I agree to add to the motion that if the result is that both properties will be using it, that there is a joint agreement recorded before the issuance of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Siddoway: Thank you. Centers: Very good. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 6 on our Agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 20 of 91 Item 7. Public Hearing: AZ 03-013 Request for annexation and zoning of 79.77 acres from RUT to R-8, C-G and L-O zones for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction – northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: Item 8. Public Hearing: PP 03-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 216 building lots and 14 other lots on 79.77 acres in proposed R-8, L-O and C-G zones for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction – northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-028 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 216 residential units, 34,200 square feet for office uses and 35,790 square feet for commercial uses for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction – northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road: Centers: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing for the next three items on our agenda, Items 7, 8, and 9. Seven being a request for annexation and zoning of 79.77 acres for proposed Kelly Creek Sub. Item 8 is a request for a Preliminary Plat for the same property of Kelly Creek Sub and Item 9 is a Conditional Use Permit for the same property, Kelly Creek Sub. I would open with staff comments. Siddoway: Thank you, Chairman Centers, Members of the Commission. You should have a staff report dated July 3rd and a transmittal date of June 30th . I do have several things I need to go over on this one and, then, get some response from the applicant. The first thing I would want to point out is in just the title section of this, I have noted that the Preliminary Plat itself is on 75.43 acres, which varies from the way it was noticed at 79.77. I came up with that acreage by looking at the actual parcel acreage in the assessor's data and the additional acreage does stand as the acreage being annexed, the difference is in the right of way being annexed. A minor point, but just to clarify why there is some differences in the numbers. Centers: Seventy-nine is correct? Siddoway: Well, 79 is the correct number for the annexation. Centers: Right. Siddoway: And 75 is the correct number for the actual land in the plat. I also -- we may want to verify the number of lots after any modifications that the applicant may make. It was noticed as 216 residential lots, 14 commercial and office lots, and 14 other lots. Those 14 other lots include the open space, the street buffers, the micropaths, and the storm water areas. With the modifications in the staff report, the total number of lots in some of those areas may change, just as a heads up. The property is currently zoned RUT. It is located at the intersection of McMillan Road and Linder Road on the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 21 of 91 northwest corner. It is comprised of eight existing parcels and would fill in this corner adjacent to Lochsa Falls Subdivision to the north and west. Bridgetower is to the south and the recently approved Paramount Subdivision abuts it on the east. This is an aerial photo of the property. It's basically currently an agricultural use with four existing homes on the property. As the property develops they intend to keep two of those homes on lots within the subdivision and two of them would be removed as the subdivision develops. This is the proposed layout. You can see the open space areas cross-hatched. The majority of it is in a single-family residential layout. They are asking for some use exceptions for a commercial corner at McMillan and Linder and an office complex over on the southwest corner of their property. You should -- in the staff report on Page 2, it details some of the basic items with this subdivision. The gross density of it is just over three acres. The net density is just under five. It does match with the medium density residential designation that it has on the Comprehensive Plan. They have also submitted as a planned development a request to reduce the lot sizes, reduce the frontages on those lots, and exceed the block length requirements of the ordinance, as well as a use exception as mentioned for the office and commercial areas. The Planned Development Ordinance allows for a use exception up to 20 percent. These requested exceptions would comprise about 15 percent of the overall project area. As a planned development, amenities are also required. They are proposing, per this plat, 7.59 acres of open space, which is about nine and a half percent -- just under 10 percent. About three and a half acres of it is in this central open space park. It is to include a gazebo, a tot lot, a half court basketball court, and an open play area. They have also, as you can see, included in this subdivision several -- well, a network of pedestrian micropaths to provide for better pedestrian interconnectivity, in spite of their somewhat larger block lengths in areas. In terms of issues that need to be resolved, I would first turn you to page seven of the staff report. These are the special considerations for the plat itself. The first one has to do with street alignment. You can see on the west side of this property the approved stub location for Lochsa Falls, which does not exactly line up with the proposed connection in Kelly Creek. It's my understanding that the two developers have been talking. Staff has no objections to shifting the Lochsa Falls stub up to align with this. We recommend that the applicant provide a letter that the Lochsa Falls developer is willing to do that. If they are unable to get that letter, they should redesign this to align with the currently approved location. Item B is the arterial right of way. The plat as originally submitted did not make room for the additional right of way that ACHD would need for a future bike lane and we would ask that any future right of way be placed on a separate common lot in this subdivision, which would affect the number of lots in the plat. Item C is the street buffers that would be adjacent to that right of way. The ordinance requires at least 25 feet. Without getting into too much detail, the ordinance specifies that, those 25 feet have to be landscaped area exclusive of the sidewalk. One of the alternatives that ACHD offers is a right of way width that places the property line just behind the future curve and doesn't make allowance for the sidewalk width. If they went for that, I have noted that the street buffer width would need to be at least 30 feet in this location. That would be on both McMillan and Linder Roads. Item D has to do with fencing. They did submit some fencing details with their Landscape Plan. However, they do not show that fencing tapering down to three feet within 20 feet of the right of way, which is Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 22 of 91 required. Micropath fencing is not shown as being installed by the developer, but would also be required. Staff is recommending that on the lots -- on the rear of the lots that are east and west of the main park, that the developer be required to install those fences to provide a uniform look to the park itself. Those are the only issues on the plat. To go to the Conditional Use Permit, I would -- well, let me stop there and ask if there are any questions or comments on those issues first. Okay. Zaremba: I would only comment that you referencing ACHD requirements a couple times, I saw a note someplace that ACHD was actually having a hearing on this last night. We have not had their report yet, of course, so -- Siddoway: A copy of their report was forwarded to me last night and I spoke with Craig Hood at ACHD this morning. He said that it went through on the Consent Agenda, largely as originally drafted in the draft version that you have. There is no significant changes happened at the commission last night. Zaremba: What's interesting to me is they are allowing so many accesses. Got several streets fairly close together but if ACHD saw that and approved it -- Siddoway: Well, they did not approve the accesses to the -- in the commercial and office areas as proposed. Part of their requirements were to modify that layout to provide different access points and we can have the applicant address that. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: Page 12 of the staff report is findings that have to be made for the use exceptions that are requested for the office and commercial uses. 4-B on Page 12 is the first one I'd like to point out. It talks about utilizing the main vehicular accesses to the primary use, which is residential, as the main accesses -- accesses to the exception site -- the exception sites would be the commercial and the office areas. To the office area, there is a road connection, so it does have a primary access point -- vehicular access point from there. Staff is recommending that an access point to the commercial area also be provided in roughly this location, in the vicinity of Lot 41, Block 10, which I believe is that one. That is also incorporated in site-specific condition Number 2. Item C deals with the pedestrian and bicycle connections, which they do provide in addition to the vehicular access here to the office, providing, one, pedestrian access in this location. Over here they are -- they have pedestrian access. Here we are recommending that if the street connection goes in here, that the pedestrian connection shift around and be provided on the west side. That is in site-specific condition Number 3. Finding D on Page 13 deals with the orientation of the buildings to facilitate that access and with those additions, as talked about, punching in a vehicular access and shifting the pedestrian, we would say that it does meet that finding. With this one caveat we found that the pedestrian access to the office area dumps you right into the back of this office and isn't a very welcoming layout, it just kind of puts you right in the back of the building. We are recommending that they realign the building pads and/or the pedestrian access to be in a more visible location, because it's completely hidden Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 23 of 91 from within that project, that you would never know that an access was back there. Item E talks about architecture and I simply noted at the bottom paragraph that the Commission should determine what, if any, architectural design concepts should be incorporated into this project. Special considerations for the conditional use start there bottom on the Page 13. The Commercial and office layouts we point out are a conceptual approval only. They do require the applicant to come back before this body with a detailed conditional use application, so no detailed review of the specific layout is given, other than the general relationship issues that have been pointed out in the staff report. Then, I mentioned that perhaps the major one, as mentioned, is this connection that may affect that layout. Item B on Page 14 is the reduced standards. Again, staff has no objections to these. We would just like to have the Commission consider and make sure that you also find that the modifications related to lot size, lot frontage, block length, are all acceptable. Item 3 is the amenities. I have already mentioned those, but we want to make sure that they are -- the Commission finds that they are appropriate in size to the size and uses of the development. Staff finds that they are. We'd like the Commission to also be cognizant of that. Item D is private streets. ACHD provides an alternative to the applicant for the connection into the office area to either be constructed as a public street with a turn around or as a private street. Staff has no objection to having this be done has a private street and we have provided our recommendation for that private street standards to be a 29-foot street, with five-foot sidewalks on both sides, in a 42-foot right of way. We would also ask that those same standards be applied to the road connection that we are asking for to the commercial area and, finally, related to private streets, there is in this location a street that's labeled as a private drive and our ordinance deals with private streets and common drives and we recommend that these -- this be deemed a private street and built to the same standards as mentioned for the other two areas. In addition to that, we are requesting for that -- on that private street that the two lots immediately north and south of the entrance to that be required to take access off of that private street to minimize the conflicts at the intersection with the road and we think that that would help -- help that by having the access taken from -- from that private street. Item E on page 15 deals with Summit Way. You can see that there is a T-shaped street in here. The first issue has to do that with the large lot that fronts on McMillan. It has no frontage currently on Summit Way. That is a large lot for the existing home that's currently on the site. ACHD has stated that the access to that is not in compliance with district policy. They do, however, recommend that the access be allowed to remain for now until the house is either torn down or changed to another use, at which point they would want it to take access either from the office complex or from Summit. Staff feels that it should not take access from the office complex, but should have frontage on Summit for -- to have actual frontage and accessibility to that street. Secondly, there are just some awkward lots with this layout and our recommendation is that the Commission direct the applicant to revise the street and lot layout in this area to not only provide frontage, but to make a more efficient lot layout in that area. I think that's all I need to go through. I will stand for any questions. Centers: Commission, any questions? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 24 of 91 Zaremba: Yes. In the area in the southeast corner of this project, I'm assuming that's the area that they are asking for to be C-G. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Actually, let me ask a question first. Should we not have it on the plat showing which zones are which? In other words, we know they are asking for R-8, C- G, and L-O, but I did not find it -- other than that it's fairly obvious, I did not find a designation of which zones were which. Siddoway: I'll let Bruce address that. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Zaremba, there is an exhibit map in the -- that came in with the application for annexation and zoning that shows those zones and the boundaries of them. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: It is not a requirement of a Preliminary Plat to show the designations on the Preliminary Plat, but they have supplied an exhibit map -- Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: -- for that purpose. Zaremba: And those zones are what would be apparent right? Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. No surprises. Okay. Then, let me ask my question about the C-G zone. The definition of Chapter 7 of C-G zones is, by my interpretation, mostly automotive service oriented businesses. My question would be whether this might be not more appropriate to be a C-N or C-C zone, as neighborhood businesses and small and larger -- has any thought been put on that? Siddoway: That is a valid question. C-G is the city's most intense commercial zone, allows -- has the most -- I should say the largest number of permitted uses. C-C and C- N do scale back a little more, as you say. I think that would be a fair question for the applicant, how they would feel about that. Zaremba: Okay. Then, I had a philosophical question that I was going to ask Director Powell, but she is not within my view at the moment. I could save the question. Oh, here she comes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 25 of 91 Powell: Sorry, sir. Zaremba: I am probably going to put you on the spot and I apologize for that, but I have a philosophical question for you. We have had discussions that have gone both ways on Planned Developments. The 20 percent use exception as to whether the whole thing ought to be zoned in this case R-8 and just the exceptions noted, or whether we should, actually, zone it separate ways and in the past we, essentially, have ended up doing whatever the applicant asked, some have wanted it one way and some have wanted it another. I guess my question is using your crystal ball and your experience, 20 years from now, what would be easier to administer, having this whole project be an R-8 and noting the exemptions or, actually, separating it into the different zones as requested? Powell: I, actually, think it's much easier to administer if we go ahead and Rezone it to their proper designations, because I think it's very confusing to people when they have to -- you know, when they are looking at a piece of commercial property, which is fine for a restaurant. It's designated R-8, they get to their lender, and the lender is like, you know, why has this got a residential zoning. I think it's much easier for the tenants in that building to have an idea of what's expected of them as far as the zoning ordinance and also for us to administer. We are still going to have to go back to these PD's and we are looking at a geographic overlay to our GIS that would allow us to keep track of these conditions of approval much easier, so that we can just have all that information right there on whether or not a CU is approved or required and what uses are approved for that project. I do believe it's better to go with the appropriate zones. Zaremba: Thank you. Center: Commissioner Rohm? I have -- well, just a comment. The C-G zone, it's not irrelevant, but in a way it is, because each -- there is four lots in this phase, you have to come back with a CUP each time. We are going to see each project that comes. Any other questions? Is the applicant here? That's a stupid question. Fluke: Where else would we be the night before a three-day weekend? Centers: Yes. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. Darin Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant in this matter. As usual, Steve did a nice job describing the project, so I don't think I'm going to go through a lot of detail on that. You have heard the facts about what the development looks like, how many lots there are, the zoning designations and so forth, and so I think I'll keep it as brief as I can and just address the issues in the staff report. Let me first just tell you how we arrived at the design that we have here. As Steve said, it's about 80 acres. What we tried to do was maximize the advantage of these two busy roadways and keep our homes back off those roads the best that we could, so that's why these -- the commercial areas located here on the corner and the office area Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 26 of 91 located here along McMillan Road. In general, the project is divided north to south by this road here, Apgar Creek, and the lots that are south of this run about 6,000 square feet, in general. Some are larger than that, but none are smaller than 6,000 square feet. All the lots to the north of this generally run about 8,000 square feet minimum, and a little bit bigger. We designed a central park area, three and a half acres, there as an amenity to the project. It's a nice entryway feature as you come in here with this terminal vista here will be in green space and this gazebo feature there. That was sort of our design concept to use these areas the best we could to buffer the residential land uses from those busier roadways. We also had the design constraint of dealing with four or five existing stub streets that were already approved with Lochsa Falls development and so we had streets in those areas and had to accommodate those. This is what we came up with, we think it's an attractive design and that it's going to fit real well with this area and offer some nice amenities to the residents. As far as the issues in the staff report, I think I'm just going to take these in turn and address them. I did give you an amended plat that we worked on based on the concerns, just -- did they get those? Got those there? Let's see. Let me get -- Steve, do you have one? Let me just first point out what we did. The staff wanted roads into this development and maintaining a road to that development. We didn't do that initially, the road here, because what we were trying to do was encourage pedestrian access on these and we don't really want to encourage somebody who lives up here to drive their car to the development, we'd just as soon they walked, and that's why we had the pedestrian paths here. The reason we had a road here initially over here was to -- because of the block length issue, which I guess, in hindsight, was a moot point. Centers: I meant to ask it earlier. The L-O and the C-G, the ACHD has not approved access at either of the arterials? Fluke: Why don't I just go ahead and address those -- Centers: Okay. Fluke: -- ACHD issues right now, since we are on that. You will recall on that previous plan that there were two accesses to the L-O, one here and one here, and we didn't need the offset for this driveway from this road and, in addition, there was a road approved in Bridgetower to the south that came in right here. We didn't meet either the offset or the alignment for that, so what we did was eliminate the two drives and align with their driveway. By doing that, we took care of their concern with the alignment here. We also meet the offset now for the existing driveway here and that's how that was approved by ACHD. This is all in compliance. What we did with the road that we previously had here was just shift it over to align with this and put a small curb in it here, so that we didn't have a continuous shot. What we don't want is cut-through vehicle traffic through that office park into the development we want to train the drivers to come in at the main entrances of the development so, we did that. The only other issue we had with ACHD is this driveway right here, which we always intended to have as a right- in, right-out, didn't meet an offset from this road. We looked at extending this down and curving it around, enclosing that approach, but it just didn't work layout wise, and so we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 27 of 91 left it the way it was and this is intended to shift to the south, it just didn't happen on the redraft and it will still be a right-in, right-out approach and that does comply with ACHD standards as well. Both of these drives comply with the offset standards and so we are good on all of those. You see what we did here, so I think the staff had recommend that the private -- or that the road -- vehicle access come in about at that point. What we did instead was move it over to where the ped access used to be and bring it in right there, that way we line up a little better with this pedestrian access and, again, we avoid that continuous shot of coming in either there, either here to there, or straight down like that. It made it a little more difficult for cars to cut through there. As long as we are talking about that commercial area, I'd just say we did not add a pedestrian path here for two reasons. One is we don't think it's necessary, because, you know, if we had it in this location you're about 300 feet or less to just walk around to there. It's not a significant distance to walk around. The second thing is that that would be one of the most expensive pedestrian paths in the history of Meridian, because we would have to lose a lot to do it. These lots here are 60 feet in frontage and there is simply no way to take 20 feet and add it in there without scrunching those lots down to something less than 60, which we were trying to avoid. That's why we didn't add one there. We think the access, ped and vehicular, is just fine the way it's designed. We ask that you just modify that condition to allow just the one access. As far as this realignment of that road, we are working with the developer. The letter is drafted, it's signed by one of the parties that has to sign it and we are just waiting for the second party to sign it, so we are amenable to that condition. That's fine. As far as the right of way widths on both McMillan and Linder, we have shown 23 feet on Linder, which ended up being, I think, ten feet more than what ACHD required anyway, so we have got plenty over there. Then, down here on McMillan they do need an additional five feet of right of way to accommodate a bike lane on the ultimate build-out of that road and, then, we will have to have an additional five feet for the sidewalk to be in the landscape buffer. We have indicated that on the redrafted plan that you have, although I'm sure that you can't read it. It does show that we've got an additional five feet of right of way and an additional five feet of landscaping. Let's see. As far as the fencing issue, D, on Page 7, not a problem. The developer intends to fence all the common areas and we will have fences along the back of these lots and, then, along any of the areas -- common areas where we accommodate drainage and dual use. One sort of a minor comment on Page 7, we'd just like to add some language on site-specific comment number two, which would allow us to extend the sewer down McMillan Road, rather than having all our sewer flow somewhere through Lochsa Falls. The reason for that is we don't have any idea, nor does the developer of Lochsa, when this portion of the project will develop. We don't want to be held up based on what they are doing, we'd like -- of course, it would be at this developer's cost to extend it, but we need the option to bring sewer through McMillan Road and I think Public Works is fine with that. Let me just run to Page 12 real quick and I will be just about done with our comments on your comments. I guess we talked about the vehicular access to the commercial lots. The finding -- or that condition says that it's and/or vehicular -- vehicular and/or pedestrian access. We chose pedestrian. The staff prefers vehicle. We went ahead and accommodated that. As far as the pedestrian access in here, this layout is conceptual. What we tried to do was just get a good idea of what the square footage of building was that we could fit on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 28 of 91 the lot. It's likely that that layout will change and we don't have a problem with bringing that path in not behind a building, we will either move the building or we will put the lot -- the path in a different spot, although it's fairly well locked in, so it's just likely that the building is going to move. Two other issues and, then, I will be done. One deals with the design of this area. The comment was that it's awkward and it be redesigned. I guess our response to that is that we don't believe that it's awkward, we have platted these types of turnarounds in other developments and they tend to be quite popular and sell quite well. We have complied with the dimensional standards for the code on all of those lots, as well as the fire code standards for the turnaround there and we really prefer to keep it the way it is. We think the pedestrian access works well here, these guys all have a nice little bit of open space. If we reconfigure that with a cul-de-sac in there, all we basically end up with is a bunch more pavement and fewer lots. Centers: Where is Lot 26 going to get access from? Fluke: Lot 26 has access on McMillan Road and currently complies with ACHD standards, because we moved this one, so it complies with the offset here and the offset here. ACHD has allowed it here and we'd like it to remain. If you want us to provide an easement through here or through here to access to that, we are certainly amenable to do that. We did not provide frontage to that lot, because, then, we'd have a double frontage lot, which is not allowed by your code. We would prefer to just keep this the way it is and we will be happy to have a condition placed on here that we provide, an access easement. In fact, it's likely that we will do it anyway, because if somebody does want to redevelop this, it's likely that it's not going to be residential, it's likely that they will ask for office uses and it would make sense for a shared drive to come in there from this office. Centers: How big is that parcel? Fluke: I think we ended up about an acre on that. Three-quarters of an acre. That's all. Centers: Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Well, actually, your last statement answered part of my question. On that one parcel that the house that's there, it appears that it's going to last quite awhile. Fluke: Yes. It was only built last year, I think. Zaremba: And it appears to be in very good shape, pretty solid house. Fluke: Yes. Zaremba: But your thinking is if it ever went away, it would be more likely to be -- that piece of property would be more likely to be added to the L-O area? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 29 of 91 Fluke: That's our thinking. Of course, that's going to be a decision for a future Commission and City Council, but it -- the size of it is -- that it just is not likely that it will go to residential uses. Zaremba: And I have assumed the ACHD statement still stands, that if the uses change, then, the access onto McMillan goes away. Fluke: Yes and we will have to deal with the Highway District at that time, of course. Centers: Any other questions? Zaremba: I guess not. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, my only comments are about this pathway right there. I realize that this development is conceptual at this point in time, but the pathway ultimately should be outside of the background of the proposed development. How are you going to place the pathway before you decide on the configuration of the lot? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, that's a fair question. Essentially, the pathway, if this layout does not change, the pathway is pretty well locked in, in its location, it's -- you know, it could be moved to the north a little bit or to the south a little bit. It's locked in and so what we will have to do is just accommodate that condition in the layout of the development here. Like I said, this is a conceptual layout to give us an idea of what we could fit on square footage wise given the parking requirements and so on and so forth, so we have got plenty of latitude to shift that Site Plan around. Rohm: Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, if I could address that, too, to Darin and Commissioner Rohm. While the commercial layout is conceptually being approved, the plat is -- is creating a lot for that parcel in that location. The plat -- we create a lot -- is proposing to create a lot for that pad in that location and if it's -- if it's Preliminary Platted in here, we would anticipate having the Final Plat come through in that same location, so I do think there needs to be some resolution for how this is going to be platted. Rohm: That's why I asked the question. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, I will go ahead and address that. Again, with the plat, like we did with the layout of the buildings, is we put the maximum number of lots on there that we thought we were going to need, because we know we can go down in number, but we can't go up after we get the preliminary approval. Again, we have the latitude to have fewer lots in here than what is shown. In essence, this will -- this is -- preliminarily this is, in essence, being platted as one large lot and when it comes back in it will probably be its own phase. It will contain no more than the number of lots that's shown on the preliminary. In fact, it's likely that there will be less on the Preliminary Plat and we Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 30 of 91 understand that once this is platted and the path is locked in, that the conditions of approval will require us to work around that and we are fine with that. Centers: Well, I don't follow that. You plat that and that's Lot 36 and someone comes to you and wants to buy Lot 36 and build an office building there, you have a pathway butting up into Lot 36 in the back of the building. How are you going to change it? Fluke: Oh, that's what I'm saying is -- Centers: You don't want to change it. Fluke: This will be platted first. Centers: Right. Fluke: So, the pathway will be locked in. Centers: Right. Fluke: When the Final Plat comes in for this, we will, then, be required to accommodate the location of that path with our lot lines and we have latitude to go down in number of lots within this. We just can't go up, so we put the maximum number on there now to give us maximum flexibility in the future. Centers: So, if we were to say that that pathway shall not butt into a building on the proposed L-O zone, then, you couldn't build there, but you don't want that condition. Fluke: No. We are fine with that condition. Centers: You are? Okay. Fluke: Yes. You know, this is conceptual. Like I said, it's a maximum yield plan for us just to give us an idea of what's going to fit on there, but the lines -- the line work is all conceptual. Centers: Very good. Yes. Mr. Fluke, after anyone else wants to testify, I want to go through each condition, so that we are real clear, because there are a number of them. Thank you. Fluke: Thank you. Centers: Anyone else wish to testify on this application? We didn't have anyone sign up. Come forward. Moss: Tony Moss, 2400 West McMillan Road. We live in the house that's just right off the -- I guess the cul-de-sac on the very top left-hand corner -- yes. Right there. When Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 31 of 91 the Lochsa Falls thing was put together there were certain conditions that went through Planning and Zoning, went through City Council and we all agreed on what they were going to do as far as the easement that I have from McMillan Road to my property, which borders the property that we are talking about right now. We went around and around and finally decided on what the -- the things that they were going to do, which was the cul-de-sac was going to be my access point on the Lochsa Fall -- or the Dan Gibson portion of the development. They were going to deed me the section of the road that goes from the end of that cul-de-sac to my property. Now, I see that there is another road that comes in there that goes to that cul-de-sac also that I'm sure this part of the development between the -- or part of the agreement between the two developers, in order to make the whole project come together, but in the process doing this Kelly property, the easement that I have on the road I have in and out of my house, I lost about a third of the driveway, because the actual property lines had shifted as they do with farm ground or fences that are put in different areas over the years and so, consequently, if this development comes ahead of the Dan Gibson portion of the Lochsa Falls development, I got a problem, because I've got a driveway that's about 15 feet smaller than it was, if they start construction on this quicker than the other portion. On the other side of my driveway is a cement ditch and an irrigation system for the turf farm that Dan Gibson has in that area and I haven't had much indication that he is going to change as far as being a developer, instead of a turf farmer in the next couple of years, so I don't know where I am with the whole thing. Centers: Mr. Moss, you say you have lost about a third of your present driveway all the way in? Moss: No. Just the last half. Centers: Okay but it wasn't due to this, that was due to the -- what was it due to? Moss: Property lines that were encroached in one direction or the other over the years. The road -- Centers: So, it's all legal, then? Moss: Yes. Centers: Okay. Moss: It is. I'm just -- this is what I'm contending with and if I have a situation like that, I don't know how much leverage I have with Lochsa Falls and Dan Gibson to make sure I got 25 feet, as my deed shows, into ingress and egress from my property. Centers: Well, I think we can -- I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong -- and the applicant will respond to this, but we can restrict the developer of this property not to encroach on your easement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 32 of 91 Moss: Well, I'm really not -- I'm just wondering how much together they are, because I have been asked by Farwest Development Corporation to relinquish my easement by August of this year, so they can start development or whatever on the project and if I do that, there is -- there is supposed to be an access road to the west of my actual easement right now, which was going to be a drive-in with a water feature, similar to what the rest of the Lochsa Falls development is. I don't know how long that's going to be before that happens. I'm wondering how -- if I should relinquish my easement under this situation, because of the connection between a smaller driveway and maybe not getting the cooperation from Lochsa Falls. Centers: Well, we are not the ones -- Moss: Between myself and the -- Zaremba: I'm not understanding on how that relates to this applicant. Does part of your easement cover this property? Moss: His property is my driveway -- a third of my driveway at the end portion of it. When the exact -- when they finally put together the property lines, it comes to find out that my driveway is a third smaller than it was and I don't have -- I just wondered how much working relationship was -- Zaremba: Whose property lines? The edge of this property or Lochsa Falls property? Moss: The edge of this property and my easement, which is supposed to be 25 feet wide. It's now 25 feet wide, but under the circumstances when the actual property lines were drawn and surveyed out there, it encroaches on my driveway by about a third. I'm -- I'm at a little dilemma here. I don't know what -- well, I don't know who to go to and I don't know what my situation -- what my possible remedy is, because I -- because if this development goes ahead before the Lochsa Falls Dan Gibson portion, which I think it probably will, where is my -- what do I do here? Centers: Well, the good news is you have a recorded easement, don't you? Moss: Yes. Centers: Well, then, I think you're in good shape, but I'm not the attorney here, but as far as relinquishing your easement, we are not the body that should help you decide that, that's -- Moss: No. I'm just saying that that -- what I was delivered with here just a month ago -- and I just wanted to see where -- how the whole thing was coming to together, because I don't think that the developments are going to be coming on line at the same time, so - - Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 33 of 91 Centers: Yes. Who knows? Well -- and we will have the applicant maybe respond to that and you can talk to them afterwards, too. Moss: Yes. Like I said, I would also like to know is there any changes in size of the cul- de-sac where the road comes in up at the top left-hand corner there or is that conducive with what Lochsa Falls is doing in their development. Centers: I'm sure it is. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Moss. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to come up and maybe talk about those issues and then -- Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Thank you. Darin Fluke again. 250 South Beachwood. Our understanding of this issue is that the -- Mr. Moss's easement is on Mr. Gibson's property, which is this property line here. As -- Mr. Moss is correct in stating that, as is often the case, that his driveway ended up encroaching over this property line somewhat and when the line was established by the boundary survey, it showed that the driveway was over the line. There is a concrete ditch that lies here on the west side of the road and, then, his driveway there. Two things is I think you're correct, Mr. Centers, in stating that he has a valid easement and so he's -- you know, he's got good legal protection as far as his easement goes. It's really Mr. Gibson's responsibility to provide him that access, because he does have the 25 feet across his lot. The second thing is that if we do develop first, our intent is to develop from this end of the property as phase one and this end of the property as phase two or three. If we do end up getting there before Lochsa Falls, he will have public road access to this point to his property. My assumption is that this cul-de-sac that's shown here in Lochsa is a temporary cul-de-sac because it's also stubbed and so, you know, if we do get there first, he will have a public road access. Centers: Are you saying that Mr. Moss could possibly go back to Mr. Gibson and say, hey, I ended up with 18 feet here, instead of 25, because of the legal description being inaccurate? Fluke: In my non-legal mind that's -- that's exactly what I'm saying is that he's got 25 feet across Mr. Gibson's property and Mr. Gibson is bound to give him that. So, it's really Gibson's -- Centers: And we are not here to give advice, but, then, that's what he could do is iron that out with Mr. Gibson. Zaremba: Just so I'm clear, none of his easement is actually on your property? Fluke: That's correct. Zaremba: But the result of building his driveway it did move onto your property. Fluke: Well, the driveway is where it always has been, it was always over the line, we just didn't know it until the boundary was established. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 34 of 91 Zaremba: So, he needs to establish with the Lochsa guy where his 25 feet really is. Fluke: That's correct. Zaremba: But none of it's on your property? Fluke: Correct. Right. Centers: Okay. Yes. Mr. Fluke, I'd like to go through, because, first of all, as you know, the staff had recommended a continuation, unless certain things could be ironed out tonight and I'm one for trying to iron them out, because I know the cost of delays and -- or I think I know. In the future, just as a tip, if you can refer to the staff report per number, agree, disagree, we request, we request that, then, I wouldn't have to do this. Fluke: Okay. Centers: Page 7 Site-specific comments Number 1 we don't have a problem there, correct? Fluke: Correct. Centers: Item Number 2 we don't have a problem and you would like for it to also state: Or extend via McMillan Road? Fluke: Correct. Centers: Item Number 3. Fluke: We are fine. Centers: We are fine. Item Number 4. Fluke: Well, we can't do anything on Ten Mile Road, but, otherwise, we are fine. Zaremba: Delete Ten Mile. Centers: Yes. Item Number 5. Fluke: We are fine with that. Actually, we are fine with all the rest of the conditions on that. Centers: Six, seven, eight, and nine? Fluke: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 35 of 91 Centers: Okay. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Yes. Freckleton: Just for the record, I just wanted to put in that I was -- that I concur with the revision of Iitem Number 2 regarding the sewer down McMillan Road. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Page 15. Site-specific for the CUP. Just go right down. Number one. Fluke: One is fine. Centers: That's fine. Number 2? Fluke: As long as we are -- as long as we have some latitude on where that's located we are fine. We have shown the revised preliminary, which is now part of the record. If you're okay with those locations, I think we can -- Centers: They say in the vicinity of Lot 41 so, you're okay with that? Fluke: Yes. If you're okay with what we redrew there and what's in front of you, then, everything is fine. Centers: And, then, the private streets and the footage thereof and that type of thing? Fluke: Correct. Centers: And you would -- well, we will probably get to that in the private street that you added. Number 3 we are fine, right? Fluke: Actually, that's the one where -- that we don't want to do. That's the one that's requesting a pedestrian path right in here. We would ask that that be eliminated in its entirety. Centers: Item Number 4. Fluke: That's fine. Centers: That's fine. Five? We are fine there. Fluke: That's all fine. Centers: Lot 26. Number 6. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 36 of 91 Fluke: That we ask to be eliminated. Centers: But you do agree to a -- Fluke: If you'd like to replace it with language requiring us to provide an easement there, we will be happy to do that in both locations, an easement across the common area here and also an easement somewhere from where ever -- where ever there ends up being an opportunity to have an easement where there is a drive aisle there, we would be happy to do that, too. Centers: Seven is no problem. Eight. Fluke: We are okay with the rest of those conditions. Centers: Okay. Thank you very much. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, for the record, I just thought of something that we need to discuss. I didn't see it in the conditions, but it was discussed by staff, and that has to do with status of this private drive right here. Initially, I didn't make an issue of this, because I thought we just had an issue of semantics versus a private drive versus a private street or a common drive versus a private street. We designed this to be a driveway. It's 30 feet in length. We do object to -- in fact, all of these three lots, of course, have to take access from it. These are just platted here for a future use. They may or may not develop in that configuration, because there is a nice big house here right now that's going to stay. We are okay with these two lots having to take access here. The only thing we don't want to do is turn it into a private road that requires 42 feet with curb, gutter and sidewalk. It just doesn't make any sense where it's going. I mean it goes into basically three dwellings and given the number of trips that would use that and the people accessing it, it just doesn't need to be that wide. We are showing it 30 feet now and so if it needs -- if it's a matter of calling it a private -- or a common drive versus a private road, then, we would ask for that and I didn't see a condition in there requiring that. Centers: Page 15, item two, you already said is okay. Fluke: Did I miss it? Siddoway: Yes. That lot is Lot 18, Block 10. Fluke: Okay. Siddoway: And we are asking that it be a 29-foot street with sidewalks and we feel that there should be sidewalks accessing those lots as well. It does allow for a narrower street section, the 29 feet, and, then, the 42 feet of right of way allows for five feet of sidewalks on each side and, then, two feet beyond. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 37 of 91 Centers: And your alternative to Lot 18, which is that private drive? Fluke: What we are showing there is a 30-foot. Centers: Right. Your alternative would be -- Fluke: The alternative road section that we proposed? Centers: Rather than improve it to the private drive standards. Fluke: Oh. What we intended to do was have 20 feet of asphalt providing access to those three lots. You know, if we use the standard trip generation that ACHD uses, you would be looking at 30 trips in there, if there were three lots. As I stated, this house is likely to be the only one back there for quite some time and we simply did that, you know, for future use. We platted it now, rather than having to back in later, although it's not intended that those are going to develop. It just doesn't seem to make any sense to us to widen this to 42 feet with curb, gutter, and sidewalk for a maximum of three dwellings there. Centers: Why don't you -- is Lot 19 the one that has the house on it? Fluke: The large one here? Centers: Yes. Fluke: Yes. Centers: Kind of a reverse flag lot and have access agreements for the other two below. Fluke: If it's the three lots, we will eliminate the two lots on the south. Like I said, it's really -- we did that for future, not -- in case they wanted to do it. There is no intention to develop those lots, because this house is going to remain, and so if the issue that's really driving this needing to be 42 feet is those additional two lots, then, we'd just say -- of course, our preference is leave it the way it is, but if that's the issue for you, we will just eliminate the lots, if we can leave the drive the way that it is. Centers: Well, what I was suggesting, include it as Lot 19 and it's a private driveway with access to Lots 21 and 21 -- 20 and 21. Fluke: You mean make this part of the plat? Centers: Yes. Fluke: Part of the lot. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 38 of 91 Centers: Part of 19. Fluke: As a flag? Centers: As a flag. Fluke: To us it's a semantical distinction. What we are really concerned about is how it develops on the ground and 42 feet doesn't make any sense. A 20-foot drive is more than adequate. For the number of pedestrian trips who are going to use that, you don't need curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of that. You know, they can -- they can walk that 110 feet there on a 20-foot asphalt surface, rather than a sidewalk. Centers: I agree. Well, let's let staff address it. Thanks, Mr. Fluke. Fluke: Thank you. Centers: We went through them, staff. Comments? Siddoway: The private street standards are found in Ordinance 12-6-2A, 6D, for private streets that serve between four and ten dwelling units and that are greater than 200 feet in length, which this one is. It says that they shall be at least in a 42-foot right of way with a 29-foot street section. We are counting that, because we are considering the two front lots taking access from that, so we are saying that there are five lots taking access from that private and it needs to conform with that standard. The common drive standards are found in 12-4-14 and they allow only up to a maximum of four dwelling units to be served off of a common drive that would have to be at least 24 feet wide. Centers: And that's four. Siddoway: Four? Centers: For maximum. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: So, if he did include that as, you know, my idea and make that part of Lot 19, with shared access to the other three lots. Siddoway: So, show me which one that -- Centers: Yes. Make this all part of 19 and people using this driveway, in addition to the owner of Lot 19, will have an access agreement or a -- however they record it, to use this, this, and this. Fluke: It's still the same number of lots accessing -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 39 of 91 Centers: Four. Siddoway: -- to it. Centers: Sure. Mr. Howell. Howell: Kevin Howell, 3451 Plantation River Drive. That one kind of slipped by me, but we can just make that one big lot with a flag and avoid all that. I don't need four lots in there. It's going to sit that way for a long, long time, but we don't need to -- we don't need to have those two lots. We can make it one big lot with a flag lot driveway. Centers: So, identify which lots you'd remove, Mr. Howell. Howell: Lots 20, Lot 21, Block 10. Looks like we turn Lot 18, Block 10, into just part of the driveway of Lot 19, Block 10. Centers: Okay. That's fine. Very good. Howell: Anything else? Centers: Anything else for Mr. Howell? Staff, how do you feel about that? Siddoway: I'm still trying to figure it out. You're saying turn Lot 18 into part of Lot 19 and combining another one into it also or that's it? Centers: Lot 20 and 21 would also become Lot 19, too. Wouldn't that be true, Mr. Howell? Howell: Yes. Centers: Yes. Okay. Lot 19 would be huge. Siddoway: Okay. Zaremba: Are we still asking that Lot 17 and 22 take their access of that driveway? Centers: They have frontage. Siddoway: Yes. It would no longer be a private -- a private drive, because it would just be to the one lot. It's a flag lot so, that would take care of it. Centers: Thank you. Siddoway: The width on the original plat was 31. In the revised plat is it still the same or has it been reduced at all? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 40 of 91 Fluke: No. We haven't changed it yet. Siddoway: Okay. I think it would work. Centers: And, then, staff, on Page 15 they are wanting to eliminate Item 3. Are you pretty hung up on that? Siddoway: Staff's okay with the shift of the road location, providing both accesses for pedestrians and vehicles. Centers: And, then, Page 16, Item 6, in lieu of that they wanted to provide two access easements. Powell: Chair Centers, we are a little perplexed as to what to do with that larger, lot Number 26, because the applicant stated that it's likely to be developed as commercial. I wonder if we want to perhaps make it a condition that the conceptual plan for the adjoining property show how cross-access could be provided to that property. Although the house -- they also stated that the house is likely to remain there for a while, so it's -- Centers: They were proposing to provide two accesses, one to L-O and one to residential. Zaremba: I made a note on Page 16 Paragraph 6. Centers: That's what we are talking about. Zaremba: I think that's the lot we are talking about. Centers: Right. Zaremba: That they would provide easements both directions. Centers: Right. And we are -- staff is pondering. That's what we are talking about. Not that they have to agree with us. Or vice-versa. Personally, I -- you know, I think that's a fairly substantial house I understand that. I think that's right, later on it will be part of the L-O in years to come, but -- Siddoway: After much discussion, we are in favor of keeping the -- Centers: They are on the fence and they are okay. Siddoway: -- proposed accesses with easements. Centers: So, what we have on page 15 for the Commission to consider is -- well, it's very simple. In Paragraph 2 we eliminate Lot 18 and -- Lot 18, 20, and 21 would become Lot 19, making one large lot, and we have made what looked like a long issue Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 41 of 91 into a shorter one. Very good any more discussion? I can tell you in advance I'm going to take a break after this, so if you want to leave early -- it's a custom. We always break at 9:00, 9:15, for about eight and a half minutes. Howell: I've got one question. Centers: Sure. Howell: Am I still on? Centers: The Public Hearing is still open. Howell: Okay. Centers: Mr. Howell has the microphone. Fluke: That little section down there where the two streets kind of dead-end in that little T. Yes. Centers: There is a pointer right there, Mr. Howell, right in front of you. Zaremba: Summit Way and Sage Springs. Howell: Yes right in there. Are we going to be able to leave that like that or are we -- Centers: Yes. We are not -- that wasn't discussed and we were just talking about access agreements for this lot to the L-O to the residential. Howell: Okay. I just thought staff had an issue with that, but it was probably -- Centers: No. No. Howell: Okay. Thanks. Centers: We want that green space. Anything else? I'd be open for a motion. Zaremba: Before we move, I guess my only question is do we want to see the ACHD report? Centers: I'm fine if staff is fine. I think the ACHD report refers mostly to the L-O and the C-G, is that correct? Siddoway: It has to do with the entire project, but those were some of the main issues, though. Centers: But they were fine with the project. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 42 of 91 Siddoway: Internally they required some different radii on some of the internal streets, but the applicant's well aware of those conditions. Zaremba: So, you're satisfied that -- Siddoway: I'm satisfied -- Zaremba: -- these conditions are incorporated or will be incorporated? Siddoway: Yes. I would just include ACHD's final comments in your motion and we can make sure they are included. Zaremba: Okay. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on all three Items 7, 8, and 9. Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, all in favor. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, AZ 03-013, request for annexation and zoning of 79.77 acres from RUT to a combination of R-8, C-G, and L-O zones for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction, the northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road, to include all staff comments of their transmittal date June 30, 2003, with no changes. End of motion. Rohm: I will second that. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 7 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Centers: Before we get to Item 8, if you make the motion to approve it as the applicant discussed, I get 213 lots. Siddoway: I have not counted the revised plat. I would defer to the applicant. Zaremba: Because we took three out. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 43 of 91 Centers: Yes. One, two, three. Siddoway: I believe we are also adding a right of way lot along McMillan, so that's an additional lot there. Zaremba: So, that would be 15 other lots, instead of 14. Centers: Fifteen other lots and, then, 213 residential lots, would that be correct? Howell: I'd have to sit down and count them, because we have got paths and I know that was a lot, so -- Centers: Is that a technicality that is major, Mr. Siddoway? Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I don't believe it would be something that would be major. I think that if the Commission or the maker of the motion wanted to feel comfortable about it, to make each specific lot change in their motion, that would be sufficient, I believe. Zaremba: If we identified it as 213 lots and it turned out to be 212, that's not a significant change. Wollen: I don't believe so. First of all, it's something that could be clarified before City Council. Secondly, I do believe there is enough of a public record as to the changes that were contemplated by the Commission. Centers: Very good. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, you could make reference to the revised Preliminary Plat as submitted and ask the applicant to verify the number of lots prior to the Council meeting. Centers: Prior to Council. Yes. Zaremba: In that case, ready for a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our Agenda PP 03-014, a request for a Preliminary Plat approval of what we expect to be 213 lots, possibly 212, building lots, and 15, not 14, other lots on 75.43 acres, not 79.77, in a proposed R-8, L-O, and C-G zones for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction, northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road. This approval to be referred to the Preliminary Plat provided by the applicant and stamped by the City of Meridian July 3, 2003. To include all staff comments of their memo transmittal date June 30, with the following changes. On Page 7, Paragraph 2, we have added an additional sentence that says applicant, at applicant's cost, may extend the sewer through McMillan Road if Lochsa Falls sewer line is not ready. On Page 8, Paragraph Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 44 of 91 4, in the first sentence, delete the words Ten Mile Road. I would add a Paragraph 10, indicating that the L-O zones and C-G zones are conceptual and are not being platted at this time within those zones. I believe that's the end of my motion. Fluke: I will second that. Centers: Motion and second. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 03-028, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 213, not 216, and possibly 212, residential units, 34,200 square feet for office uses and 35,790 square feet for commercial uses for proposed Kelly Creek Subdivision by Kevin Howell Construction. Northwest corner of North Linder Road and West McMillan Road, and this, again, refers to the plat that they have provided to the City of Meridian, date stamped July 3, 2003. To include all staff comments of the staff memo of June 30, 2003, with the following exceptions under site-specific conditions -- this is Page 15 of the memo, Paragraph 2, the second sentence shall be modified to read: North Dove Ridge Drive shall be a private street. The third sentence begins: Both streets shall be designed -- and it continuous the way it was. The current paragraph three is deleted and we will add another paragraph -- substitute paragraph three that says Lots 18, 19, 20, and 21 of Block 10 shall be combined to become only Lot 19 of Block 10. Paragraph 6 on Page 16 shall read: Lot 26, Block 12, shall be provided an easement to Summit Way and an easement into the L-O zone. Centers: Very good. Zaremba: I believe that's the motion. Rohm: I will second that. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 9 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Centers: Break time. (Recess.) Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-024 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new dental clinic in an L-O zone for Seegmiller Dental by Dr. Dave Seegmiller – south of East Gala Street and east of South Millennium Way: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 45 of 91 Centers: The next item on our agenda is Item Number 10. It's a Conditional Use Permit to construct a new dental clinic in an L-O zone and it's for Seegmiller Dental. We will open with staff comments from Mr. Bradley Hawkins-Clark. Hawkins-Clark: Good evening, Mr. Centers and other Commissioners. This Item No. 10 is located within Resolution Subdivision Business Park, south side of Overland Road. Mountain View High School, as you well know, is nearing final construction for occupancy to the south. Also a few weeks ago this same body recommended approval for a re-subdivision of the lot that is in bold. I believe it came under the name Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision, a three lot re-sub. I think you're well familiar with area and the parcel. The City Council -- I put in my staff report the City Council had dealt with this on Tuesday. However, Anna mentioned to me tonight that the Council, unfortunately, had to continue that item, so I can't tell you -- I was hoping to tell you what their decision was on that, but there is no decision, so at this point it still stands that the three lot re- subdivision is simply with your recommended conditions. As I mentioned in this report further, the -- really, the main issue here -- whether it was approved or not approved is somewhat moot, because this application really is dealing with an existing legal lot that is in Resolution Subdivision. The Commission, obviously, as a Conditional Use Permit, has the opportunity tonight to deal with whatever conditions you deem fit, but just to remind you that generally the outline of the three -- of the three lots comes -- comes through here. The dental lot is the full eastern portion of this Site Plan and, then, the other two lots are kind of split down the middle with that dashed line. They have a single point of access off South Millennium Way located here and that is also the shared access point for the flag lot to the that south, which you can kind of see through this by this bold line here, which the flag lot does extend clear to the shared east boundary of the Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision. Just really one issue on this -- on this Conditional Use Permit to talk with you about I think that needs resolution and that deals cross-access. I'm assuming you have read my brief treatise in the staff report, so I won't read through that, but suffice it to say that your recommended condition to the Council was that Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision provide cross-access and cross- parking to adjacent lots, is the way that your motion ended up being. I guess the -- we are in some ways taking a little issue with the cross-parking and that could be, as I tried to clarify with Steve Siddoway, that his understanding of your motion -- and since he was the planner on that Seegmiller Subdivision, was that probably the cross-parking was intended to be within these three lots, not necessarily that you were saying this -- these three lots must have cross-parking with this lot three or this lot five. That's how we are interpreting it and, if so, then, I guess we are all good. Zaremba: Actually, that's not how I remember it. Hawkins-Clark: Well, that's certainly up for discussion, then, tonight. Our recommendation only -- we are only dealing, really, with the dental property here on the east and our recommendation at staff is that a cross-parking easement for them to provide to Lot 3 and Lot 5 would be difficult to administer and track and particularly since the benefit for that would primarily lie with future developments. The first one in, in some ways, may bear the larger burden, because of having to -- the future builders Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 46 of 91 know the configuration of this parcel, they know how many lots are available, and if they choose to reduce their parking because they know that there is cross-parking here, that, in some ways, hinders this dental clinic. That was the reason for us to recommend that -- that that condition removed for this project. You know, there may be some other lots within Resolution where that cross-parking is appropriate. In this case, since we are dealing with a fairly small area, it's pretty walkable as it is, most likely you wouldn't have customers accessing -- you know, getting into their vehicles to drive from this building to the building on Lot 3 or over to Building A or B over here. I think that's on the cross- parking. The cross-access -- as I mentioned, there is one point of access here off of the collector, Millennium Way. As they enter there is a stub to this flag lot, so that the future developer of Lot 3 does have cross-access through this Gaudry Seegmiller Subdivision at this point. The question is was the intention of the Commission to also require this eastern portion -- this eastern Lot 1 to also provide vehicular cross-access at this point and staff's opinion is that that's not appropriate, that a cross-access at this point would really just benefit the southern lot, since they may use it to get up to East Gala Street. We are -- I guess my understanding also from Anna Powell at the City Council meeting is that Chief Worley, Police Chief -- or, I'm sorry, Captain Musser with the Police Department also had some concerns with the high school traffic. You know, possibly coming through here and, you know, circulating in this pretty small development, even though there is a fence here on this shared boundary with the school, they wouldn't get very far. That was a concern expressed by the Police Department, so -- we are recommending that a pedestrian cross-easement -- cross -- pedestrian cross-access easement be recorded and provided to us before certificate of zoning compliance or Building Permit generally next here to the trash enclosure to allow them to -- you know, to have some connection between these lots north and south, so that they would not be forced to walk all the way around through the vehicular access point, which, you know, is several hundred feet. That's -- that is a recommendation of ours. I think the conditions are pretty clear on this one. The Item Number 3 on Page 5 is our recommendation for the five-foot sidewalk stub to the south somewhere in this line. We are not dictating where that would be, that's really left up to the applicant and their designer. We are also -- and this has not been addressed with the applicant, but we do have some concerns about access to this Lot 5, I believe it is, to the east and I will go back to the overall Site Plan. As you can see, this Lot 5 is pretty good size. I don't know the exact -- well, I believe it's probably around four or five acres. It was originally intended to be an ice rink. When Resolution came through, the private party, I believe, funding fell through or whatever the reason was, that ice rink did not materialize, so the lot could potentially still have a pretty good size user and -- or it could be re-subdivided. We don't know at this point. Having east-west access between Gaudry Seegmiller and this lot is recommended and we would like the applicant to address that tonight. We would at this point recommend that a cross-access easement in favor Lot 5, Block 1, will be provided and that would, of course, come through this portion of their parking lot. That's all I have. Centers: Mr. Clark, I don't see that in your conditions, Lot 5, Block 1, or did I miss it? Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Centers, that's correct, it's not in there. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 47 of 91 Centers: You want to add it? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Centers: Cross-access agreement to Lot 5, Block 1. Very good. Any questions from staff? Zaremba: Yes. My recollection of when we had this was that the applicant for Lot 3 did come to the hearing and spoke and specifically requested that they have vehicle access here and, actually, asked that this be reconfigured to make this a little more convenient for their entry. This appears to be the same as the original drawing that we first saw without those accesses added, but my recollection of the motion to approve that at the time included this becoming -- at least that was the intention -- a vehicle access and this joint entry being reconfigured. Apparently, I'm the only one that remembers it that way. But I know that was a specific request from Becky McKay and I thought that the Commission agreed with that. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Centers, Commissioner Zaremba, yes, the -- I think our recollection is the same, yes, I think Ms. McKay did come to the hearing, she did represent Mr. Voigt, the developer, and testified that that was their -- that was their preference and that was the -- that was the way that your recommendation was drafted by Steve Siddoway and forwarded on to Council. Zaremba: To have that vehicular access. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Centers: Let me jump in. What's done is done there. That's done. We are dealing with the dental clinic and your recommendations on that tonight. Zaremba: Well, it appears that your Recommendation is to eliminate the vehicular access that we asked for. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That was raised -- or I should say will be raised at the City Council meeting on the subdivision and in some ways we are -- it would have been of benefit to have the Council's decision for this hearing tonight. We don't have that, so I - - you know, I think the applicant had some miscommunication, I believe, with their -- with their client on that issue at your last hearing. I believe Anderson and Associates was the applicant and there was -- there was communication to staff after your hearing on Gaudry Seegmiller that all along they were not in agreement with putting that condition on there. Yes, you're right, this is a separate application. The cross-access issue is probably most appropriate as a plat issue. However, you know, a Conditional Use Permit, you can -- you can address cross-access as well. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 48 of 91 Centers: I have got to be honest with you, I don't recall. However, maybe we can hear from the applicant. Seegmiller: I'm David Seegmiller, 4080 Bodily Lane, Meridian. First of all, in relation to the cross-access agreement, this is a dental clinic and there is parking -- there will be parking here and here. The entrance to the clinic is here. There is going to be pedestrian traffic coming between parked cars of adults and children, many of whom have had dental treatment completed, with this opened up here it creates a straight line thoroughfare of traffic to this lot, potential safety problem for vehicular pedestrian accidents. We already have some cross-connectivity here, these cars can access this lot without having to go onto Millennium Way. There is that cross-connectivity already in place. In regard to the way the curb cut was positioned, that was done by the developer, by Voigt Development. The original plans had the curb cut here, but in response to a developer, which fell through on the other side of Millennium Way, both of these curb cuts were moved. We had asked that the developer move those back to the end of the flag lot and we were unable to come to an agreement to have him do that. In fact, that's still on the table, but they, you know, at this point, are unwilling to do that. We gave an easement to them through our property, you know, at no charge to them, so they could access that flag lot, otherwise, they would have no access to that street. I have no problem with pedestrian access, but I do have a concern about safety, especially I will be assuming the liability for any accidents on that property from traffic going through. I'm not seeing any benefit from the traffic going through the lot, but I'm assuming all of the liability for any potential accidents with my patients. Centers: And did you read the staff comments, Mr. Seegmiller? Seegmiller: I did. Centers: And you're in agreement with those? Seegmiller: Yes. Centers: I can understand your concern. Sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees, but we didn't know a dental clinic was going in there either. Very good. Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Let's see. Do you have any problem with the access going east? Seegmiller: Only in that it may turn into the same -- same type of situation. Centers: Well, you mean pedestrian? Zaremba: No. Vehicle. We are going for interconnectivity and the original sub development had interconnectivity of all these lots. I'm not ready to give that up when it's to keep people from having to go out into the street to get from lot to lot. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 49 of 91 Centers: Yes. Seegmiller: I'll let Larry Knopp, architect, speak for -- Knopp: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Larry Knopp, 355 South 3rd Street. I'm the architect on the project representing Dr. Seegmiller. To give you a little bit of background on what has happened, I think he filled you in a little bit. Lot 3 down below was supposed to have access off of Millennium Way at their flag right here. Through a design process on this other parcel across the way, that curb cut here and here got shifted from this area location up to this location. At the time nobody knew about it, except Briggs Engineering, who was handling the recommendations and the submittals with ACHD on it, so when I laid this out I was using this and coming in here and accessing off Millennium Way, because I know that ACHD is wanting to limit the amount egress-ingress that's coming on Millennium Way, especially with the high school. We tried to get Voigt Development to move this curb cut back to the flag lot. They said they had paid for it once, didn't want to pay for it again, so they didn't want to move it. That was after the people that were developing or trying to buy this development fell through, so they did have an opportunity to move that and go back to the original design. I am working and I will show you -- I have got a drawing on Lot 1. I don't know if that's good or bad, but I'm the architect on that one also. Voigt Construction also asked me to do some land planning on Lot 3 and I did that. I will show you what I came up with that I think is probably a better solution. They didn't seem to think that it was, but it offers some other advantages to them, because what they are finding out is they developed the subdivision here with fairly large lots and what they are finding is the users that are wanting to be here are not big users and that's the case here. We have two doctors that bought this corner lot that only need this building and this building, they don't know if this one will -- if they will sell it or develop it or whatever, but -- so we -- that's why we are in for a subdivision on this one lot, to break it into three. There are two different owners right now, possibility of selling that other one off. First of all, I'd like to show you -- I'd like to show you a Site Plan that gives you an overall picture of these three lots and from what I can tell on the records, it sounds like to me that through Resolution Sub it was their idea that maybe they wanted to try to get some cross-connectivity between these three lots. Because I'm assuming there are supposed to be more limited office, not an ice rink, not more of a commercial that they have asked for and got some use as far as Resolution Sub goes. I don't have a board for this, so I guess I'll just have to hand it to you. This is a conceptual plan that I drew up for Voigt Construction, but this shows you the development we are working here on the Lot 2. This is the development that you will be see shortly on Lot 4 with another dental clinic and another pad site that's available and this is coming in and connecting on the flag lot. One of the big reasons why I tried to get Voigt to redo this is because this flag lot is really a collector for these three lots and give the connectivity that I think needs to be for it. We have got -- now that they have built it here, instead of here, we have had to give them an easement on this. I've got a copy of it, it's already in place, they needed to do it, so they could close on this lot and it also gives access across the flag on Lot 3 for this Lot 4. I suggested what they do is to come in here and possibly -- they would make -- may have one use -- I don't know how this is going to be used, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 50 of 91 nobody does, but provide access through this five acres, give them more of an opportunity to break up and sell smaller lots if they've got smaller users. Then, also access and come out here and connect across at Celebration Drive. Centers: Is any of this platted right here? Knopp: This is all theirs. It's lot -- it's Block 1, Lot 1, I guess, is all theirs. I also told them that maybe they'd want to come in here on this property line and provide another access, because this is -- this is theirs, they still own it, the developer, they still can do something without any problem. Centers: Well, there is going to have to be connectivity, so it could be either through Seegmiller or through your proposal. Knopp: Right. Centers: Either/or. Knopp: Right because we are giving them cross-connectivity right here. Centers: Right. Knopp: They have got it here, we have got the easement in place, this is cross- connected, this is cross-connected on all three. You don't have to go out on Millennium, you don't have to go out on Gala to interconnect. Centers: This, of course, is proposed and, you know, it's nice of you to bring that. If we were to say we want connectivity to Lot 1, the big one, either through Seegmiller or through a proposal that comes in later, that would be fine? Knopp: Well, I think it's -- we are going to end up -- if we have traffic through the parking lot and through more of a situation here, you know, we open -- we open this up to -- I don't know much traffic could be generated through here. This can be more controlled, than it can be through this three-lot subdivision that we are trying to -- Centers: Yes. Yes. I understand. Knopp: That's the -- you know, that's what I'm looking at. The fact that they have control over this and if they would establish this, then, it would be there. If we say, okay, you know, you can access here, we don't know how this is going to be developed. We don't know if that works for them. Centers: If you don't give access through Seegmiller, is he land locked? Knopp: No. No. This is all -- this whole lot is one five acre parcel. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 51 of 91 Centers: Where is his access? Knopp: All along Gala. Centers: Yes. Knopp: Lot 3 -- because this is a recorded subdivision -- Centers: Yes. Knopp: Resolution Sub. Centers: Right. Knopp: So, you know, there is no land lock on it. He almost land locked himself here on this one when they moved it and didn't -- they didn't put that easement in place. They are the ones that caused problem and we didn't know about it until we were designing and getting as built on it, that that -- that egress-ingress on -- was changed, the flag lot backup onto Block 2. Centers: Question for Mr. Clark. You are wanting to add item 11, cross-access to Lot 5, you were meaning vehicular access? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Centers: And where is Lot 5? Knopp: Well, this is Lot 5. It's a five-acre lot. Centers: Right. Right. Knopp: And so -- and they have 561 lineal feet of frontage on Gala Street. I'm not sure what we are accomplishing by trying to give them cross-access vehicular traffic through a parking lot here that's a limited professional office building. Centers: Okay. I tend to agree. I don't get to vote tonight. Anything else? Rohm: This is an exiting lot, this flag lot here? Knopp: Yes. Centers: Well, it's proposed. Knopp: No. No. No. No. These are all existing lots. They are not proposed. We are proposing Seegmiller Subdivision Lot 2 is a legal lot in Resolution that's been passed Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 52 of 91 and approved and is there. They bought it, my clients, and they want to subdivide that one lot only into the ability to put three buildings up here. Zaremba: And we agreed with that, except for the condition of the agreement was that there be access here to Lot 3. Knopp: And they have access right here to Lot 3. Zaremba: Here. Knopp: I know, but what's -- why did -- can you tell me why and what the reasoning was behind -- Zaremba: Mostly for traffic flow. Knopp: So, in this traffic flow -- where this traffic flow would not be good for Lot 3? Zaremba: This doesn't exist at the moment. Knopp: Right. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Centers? Knopp: This does. Lot 3 was established in Resolution Sub as a flag lot and had access and curb cuts as shown. They do have connectivity here, where we don't have conflict with people walking back and forth to buildings. It limits the pedestrian-vehicular conflict that we might have and we don't know how this is going to develop, this flag lot, but we do have the cross-connection between all three lots. We don't have to go out in the street, we pretty much accomplish that and, then, however they develop this and what they do with it is, you know, still there. I mean that's what we have. Where we don't have multiple connections and multiple traffic problems and worrying about conflict of the people walking between this development here and these buildings. Centers: This street is in right now? Knopp: This curb cut is in. This is a lot, a legal lot, in Resolution. This flag lot is a legal lot. This lot that we are talking about, Seegmiller Gaudry, is a legal lot. This lot is a five-acre parcel that was supposed to be kind of designed, I guess, or whatever -- set aside for an ice rink, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Centers? Centers: Mr. Clark. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. Staff maybe just recommends, in the interest of time, and since we are dealing with access issues that really are subdivision related and there is a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 53 of 91 pending application that deals with access before the City Council, that you really could place a condition on this that they comply with Council approved easements -- cross- access easements on this, I believe, because it does not really materially impact the design that they have submitted on this Conditional Use Permit. Centers: Right. Thank you. Knopp: Yes. We wouldn't be changing the design, but we are in the process of wanting to conduct talks to see about this -- having this cross-access through the middle of this -- of this one lot when the flag has always had and we have cross-connectivity. There is an easement in place -- a legal easement that's in place at this flag lot for Lots 3, 4, and 2 in here. They do have all the cross-connections with limiting the amount of traffic that we might have cross-traffic. Centers: Well, I can understand your concerns. We'll take it from there. Knopp: Thank you. Centers: Anyone else want to testify on this application? Wishney: Mr. Commissioner -- Commissioners, my name is David Wishney, I'm an attorney and working with Drs. Gaudry and Seegmiller. I really hadn't anticipated testifying today, but on this cross-connectivity easements, I just want to make two points, because I feel like the Commission maybe is being misled to some degree. This issue, when it was raised by the developer's representative, really is less about connectivity than it is about access to the flag lot, because the flag lot is proving to be undesirable. The developer wrote a letter to the -- to Mr. Knopp -- if I can just read one sentence, it is that: The primary concern at this point is improved access to Lot 3. That's why they are really looking for a straight shot from Millennium to Lot 3, is because they can't sell Lot 3 so, this could develop -- the likelihood that other -- that there will be a need for vehicular cross-traffic between these buildings I think is somewhat slim and, in any event, the burden should fall on the developer. The developer sold this lot to the doctors and did not retain any easements, other than the one that Mr. Knopp has described. If cross-access was an issue, it should have been negotiated at the time. I think the developer has sufficient property left over that he can deal with any connectivity issues that you might have when he develops out the rest of that property and it's an unfair burden to place that entirely on these two doctors. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Any questions? Anyone else wish to testify? Thank you. Powell: Chairman Centers, may I make a quick statement? Centers: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 54 of 91 Powell: The reason the item was continued from the City Council is because no one showed up to represent it, so I would encourage all those that have spoken in favor of this development tonight to check with the city clerk on the next hearing date for the subdivision and provide testimony at that hearing as well. Centers: Thank you. Good point. Commissioners? Seegmiller: Real quick. David Seegmiller. I was under the impression that Gordon Anderson, who had made the application, had postponed that meeting for us. It shouldn't have been counted as a -- that we didn't show up. That was my -- I was told that we had a postponement, so -- just for the record. Centers: Okay. You need to talk to the City Clerk, not the other person. Commission, how do you want to proceed here? Zaremba: I'm not willing to recommend approval of a CUP that doesn't comply with the Preliminary Plat. I think the Preliminary Plat shows -- or should show an access through there. The choice would be to continue this until we find out what the City Council did or to deny it, one or the other. Centers: Well, maybe staff can correct us if we are wrong. I think this is an approved Preliminary Plat. Correct? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Centers, that's not correct. It is approved by the Commission, but it's not approved by Council. Zaremba: Well, actually, there is a current approval as a single lot. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Yes. We are dealing with a legal lot. Zaremba: But that is a Resolution Subdivision lot -- Hawkins-Clark: That is a Resolution Subdivision lot. Zaremba: -- that already has an underlying requirement for cross-access. Hawkins-Clark: That's not correct. The Resolution Subdivision was recorded without cross-access easements. Centers: Well, I guess, you know, I would be -- and we have done that before, we can approve a CUP, even though the plat has not been approved by Council. Of course, knowing that it would have to be. Zaremba: If this CUP looks like I think the plat looks, I could be comfortable with that, but this doesn't look like what I think the plat looks like. I would want to see what City Council does. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 55 of 91 Hawkins-Clark: If staff could just clarify that. When you say that you don't think that this layout represents the Preliminary Plat, are you saying -- Zaremba: I'm saying the conditional of approval was that there was access -- direct access where apparently there is a trash enclosure now, to -- into the flag Lot 3. If now this applicant, I would expect, can go to the City Council meeting and object to that condition and maybe get it removed. If that's the case, then, I could see working with this CUP. Centers: I see what you're saying. Powell: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, there was -- you did place a condition of approval on there that they resubmit a new -- a revised Preliminary Plat layout ten days prior to the City Council hearing. They did not do that. The one that went before the Council the other night it's identical to this one. The one that they are looking at does look like that, but, you are correct, it is not consistent with what you approved. Centers: But if we approved it and, then, as Mr. Clark stated, any access -- cross- access agreements to be determined by City Council. Powell: That would seem to work. It would -- as far as administrating your conditions of approval that would work. If the Commission still feels strongly about the cross-access agreement, you can restate that in your recommendation up to City Council, kind of to drive the point home, if that's what you want to do. You have a -- you certainly have two options there. They may -- Centers: Because the way I feel, you know, I think this is a good project to get something built there, a dental office, and let's be realistic, the Council has the final say anyway, and let them work out the cross-access on the whole subdivision, which they will have, and, then, they will have this right after that. Correct? Anyway -- Zaremba: Well, I'm uncomfortable thinking that Council is looking at something that isn't what we approved or what we recommended approval on. Centers: Well, as the planner director stated, you can state that, you know, that -- how strongly you feel about the cross-access. I think the applicant makes a good point regarding that flag lot and a proposed street. We can't act on proposed, but -- and I think the doctor makes a good point regarding the street going through there and people walking back and forth, kind of like a drive-up window where they get turned down, because there is a walkway across it, which happened recently. You know, I can see high school students cutting through there and, you know, especially, if that -- if that street for the flag lot comes in as proposed -- and I think it's going to have to for Lot 3 to have anything of value -- and I think the attorney stated that in that letter from the developer. If that goes in and you have got a cross-access from that street up to Gala, you have got problems. Correct me if I'm wrong, Millennium Way goes down to the high Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 56 of 91 school and you got those kids taking a right and, then, a left and -- you know, so I just -- that's my opinion and you guys take it from there. We could close the Public Hearing if you so desire or continue it or -- you have choices. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we continue this Public Hearing until after we have a decision by the City Council on the previous lot split and I would assume that that would mean moving it to July 17th . Centers: Absolutely room on July 17th . We have one -- Zaremba: I'm just wondering if City Council is going to act that fast. Do we know when they continued it to? Powell: Commissioner Zaremba, I think they did it out two weeks, so -- I'm being told that was the 15th , so -- I may need to check with the clerk -- Zaremba: Well, my motion is to continue it until after the City Council has heard the Preliminary Plat change and if that turns out to be the 17th , that’s fine, or it would be continued again. Centers: I have a motion to continue Item 10 on our agenda as mentioned. Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: Motion and second. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Centers: It would be continued to the 17th if the Council acts prior to that on -- understood the motion. Powell: Commissioner Centers, my recollection is that they continued it to the 22nd , which would mean your next meeting is August 7th . Centers: August 7th is plumb full. Zaremba: Well, I think I would decide the calendar date after we know if the Council has heard it and I would say that August 7th is not available. Centers: So, we are talking August -- Zaremba: If it doesn't make it by July 17th , it's August 21st . Centers: You don't want to amend your motion or withdraw it? Zaremba: The motion is for us to continue it until after the City Council has acted. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 57 of 91 Centers: We have a motion and it's approved. Zaremba: Whatever the date is. Centers: And it's carried and I still voice my disapproval. I think it's unfair to that applicant when we could lay it on the Council to decide the access agreement at that time. I don't know when they want to break ground there, but I think it's very unfair. Rohm: Well, we already forwarded it to Council, of which they neglected to act on it, so- Zaremba: Yes. They didn't provide the new Preliminary Plat. Rohm: Right. If the Council didn't see fit to act on it at the time that they first heard it, then, they must have some concerns themselves and I think that that's what Commissioner Zaremba is -- his quandary is, is why would we be forwarding something with our approval that they haven't even -- Centers: Well, it was continued because no one showed up, as the planning director stated. At any rate -- Zaremba: With the additional factor that they didn't have a revised plat to show the conditions that we asked for. I'm -- once all of that is in place, I agree with you, I think this is -- the basic concept behind this project is a good idea and I'm in favor of it, but I'm also in favor of having that access there, unless the City Council says no. Centers: Well, we have -- Zaremba: So it's continued. Centers: It's continued and the applicant would be notified if we -- I'm quite certain it would be the meeting of August 21st at the latest. Yes. You have to come to the microphone. Knopp: Mr. Commissioner, Members of the Commission, Larry Knopp, 355 South 3rd . I was informed that the meeting -- and I'm just finding out tonight that I thought -- they told me, Gordon Anderson, Anderson David surveyors and engineers, that they had postponed the meeting on it, so that we could address the cross-access, because we did not agree with that and it was going to be heard the 15th . Centers: Now, if it's heard the 15th , we will hear this the 17th , correct? Because we will know what the Council has decided. Knopp: And this is -- I thought -- I thought that somebody was there. I know better, I have been in business a long time, you have to either re-schedule it or you show up. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 58 of 91 Centers: Right. Knopp: And so somebody evidently did drop the ball, so it's not that we -- that we figured that we are in trouble on it, we just feel pretty adamant about the cross- connection vehicular traffic down to Lot 3, so -- Centers: Well, at any rate, we will hear it the 17th . Knopp: Great. Centers: If possible. Knopp: Thank you very much. Centers: Absolutely. Pardon? Yes, 17th of July, as along as we have the verbal of the Council. We will have their minutes, anyway. Okay. Powell: I believe the clerk -- the Deputy Clerk -- I'm not sure what -- Jessica. I don't know her title. It's the 22nd . She looked. Centers: So, the applicant is wrong. Powell: It will be August 7th . Centers: Yes. It will be -- Powell: Or August 22nd . Centers: -- it was continued to the 22nd of July and that's after our meeting, so you're looking at August 21st that this is continued to. Knopp: Okay. Item 11. Public Hearing: CUP 03-025 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a bank facility with a drive-thru window in a C-C zone for Idaho Banking Company by Idaho Banking Company – 1875 South Eagle Road: Centers: Next item on the agenda, Item 11, CUP 03-025, it's a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Idaho Banking Company on South Eagle Road. Open with staff comments. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Centers, Members of the Commission. This request is for a bank facility with three drive-thru windows, three drive-thru lanes, in a C- C zone. It is within Bonita Subdivision, which came through as El Dorado, Overland on the north, Eagle Road on the east. The applicant is proposing this bank to be constructed on a future lot. As you can see on the Site Plan, the El Dorado business Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 59 of 91 campus has not been recorded as a formal plat yet. It has been -- the Final Plat has been approved and I believe they are very close to recording, but there is not to date a recorded subdivision there. The applicant is submitting this Conditional Use Permit with the knowledge that -- that they are restricted to the 18 months, which is the maximum time frame for a Conditional Use Permit to be valid. We don't anticipate that to be a problem, but we did request the applicant to submit a memo stating that they are fully aware that if approved tonight it is contingent on the recording of the subdivision before they would be able to get a Building Permit. The way that the Site Plan is shown on the screen, north is up, Eagle Road is here on the right-hand side of the screen. Tarpon Drive would be on the north side of this future lot within Bonita Subdivision. The applicant did submit a revised Site Plan. What I'm showing here on the screen tonight is that revised Site Plan. I just wanted to make sure that the Commission was aware that there was a Site Plan that was revised after that, which you have got in your packets. The access to this facility is shown off of Tarpon Drive, actually, here off of the legal -- outside the legal boundaries of their lot. They would have to get a cross-access easement through this lot and they would proceed east to access the drive-thru and their facility. They have parking both on the west and east sides of this main drive-thru, then, the automobiles come and orient themselves to the east and, then, would continue around the building and, then, exit the property at the same shared access point on Tarpon Drive. There were just a couple of outstanding issues on this, which I addressed on page four. One of those we are asking the applicant tonight to address the cross-access, why -- why they are showing some parking off site and if that access is entered into with the adjacent property owner with the developer, so we are just asking for that -- a clarification of that intention tonight. The second item is the pending site layout. Their cover letter did request -- their May 8th cover letter did request the opportunity for them to have some flexibility in the design of their west elevation, as well as some of the lot lines. Since this is not recorded, they may want to shift these a little bit, and I have addressed that in the condition number three, which says that any lot line adjustment or cross-access easements or re-subdivision necessary to accommodate this site are going to have to be approved prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance. We are also recommending that the Commission and Council grant administrative authority for us to approve minor modifications, as long as it does not affect the drive-thru, which is the only reason for the Conditional Use Permit before you, anyway. If -- as long as they don't modify the drive-thru lanes, the traffic circulation pattern, that elevation, that other slight modifications staff could approve at the time they come in for Building Permits and we would be comfortable with that. I think those are the only two items to point out. Centers: Thank you. Any questions? Zaremba: Do you have a larger picture of what -- what is it now, Bonita? That identifies where Tarpon is within that subdivision? Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry, I don't. The elevations are shown here. I'll go back to the original vicinity map and -- we are talking, I believe, approximately in this location. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 60 of 91 Zaremba: Okay. The reason I asked that question was that -- if Tarpon were here, then, the south facing speakers on the bank would be an issue for these residents. If Tarpon is up there, I have no problem with it. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. It's within the northern quarter. Zaremba: Okay. Easy for me. Centers: Very good. Applicant? Larsen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, 210 Murray Street in Garden City. I'm here tonight representing Idaho Banking. In an effort to be short tonight, because I want to get through the agenda, because I have another item on the agenda, I've got a couple of handouts for you that I could show you, which might help clarify. This is, actually, another copy of the site that Brad has on the screen for you and, then, a colored rendering of the building that I could -- I'd like to pass around. We are in agreement with the staff report. We don't have too many things to discuss. I wanted to take a brief moment and explain one issue that we wanted to make sure we were clear on regarding cross-access. We would have a cross-access easement here with the adjacent lot and these parking stalls are just inadvertently drawn on there, they are not intended to be used by the banking facility. They were, actually, shown on another piece that was kind of cut out of our master plan for the project and so these would not be a part of this project, they would be done at a future date and they may not be in that configuration at all. We were trying to avoid any connectivity going to the south, simply because the drive-thru traffic is going like this and out and, really, our only access is here and -- excuse me -- in through the drive- thru. Until the bank knew what was going on down here, they were really reluctant to have a connection her. We wanted you to be aware of that, that we were trying to protect that drive-in and the access to it and anything that may occur in the way of an accident at that location or a conflict with the drive-thru. Our cross-access, we would be able to provide right here real easily with no problem at all and we would work that out with Mr. Moore and with staff. Let's see. We want to have the drive-thru on the south side and we are in approximately the location that Brad had shown you on the overview for the project itself, so -- on location in El Dorado. That is very consistent with what they are showing and I don't have any other comments. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Centers: Questions? Very good. Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this application? All right. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on Item 11 be closed. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 61 of 91 Centers: Moved to close the Public Hearing. Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda, CUP 03-025, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a bank facility with a drive-thru window in a C-C zone for Idaho Banking Company, by Idaho Banking Company, 1875 South Eagle Road. To include all staff comments of their memo with a transmittal date of June 30, 2003, and reemphasizing that Item 4 on Page 5 grants the staff administrative authority to make adjustments that don't include the drive-thru. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 11 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 12. Public Hearing: AZ 03-009 Request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-15 (PD) and C-N zones for proposed The Courtyards at Ten Mile by Doug Campbell / Tom Bevan / DTE Developers – southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Item 13. Public Hearing: PP 03-010 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and 5 other lots on 11 acres in proposed R-15 (PD) and C-N zones for proposed The Courtyards at Ten Mile by Doug Campbell / Tom Bevan / DTE Developers – southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 03-020 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for attached single-family residential with commercial in proposed R-15 (PD) and C-N zones for proposed The Courtyards at Ten Mile by Doug Campbell / Tom Bevan / DTE Developers – southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue: Centers: Next on our agenda, I think it's what most of you were waiting for. Items 12, 13, and 14. I'd like to open all three Public Hearings at this time. Item 12 being the annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to C-N zones for The Courtyards at Ten Mile. Item 13 is a Preliminary Plat. Same project. Item 14 is a Conditional Use Permit for that Preliminary Plat. Start with the staff comments. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, this is an application for a Preliminary Plat, which for 31 building lots, including 28 single-family attached homes, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 62 of 91 three commercial lots, and five other lots, including one park. It's also an application for annexation of 11 acres. It currently zoned RUT and located in the county. They are proposing a Rezone to R-15 and C-N. It's also an application for a CUP and Planned Development to allow reduced lot sizes, reduced frontage requirements, reduced setbacks, reduced home sizes, and an exemption from the cul-de-sac length requirements to allow a 495-foot cul-de-sac. They are also asking for an allowance to have residential lots above retail buildings. The property is located at the southeast corner of Ten Mile and Pine. It's surrounded -- to the north, it's bordered by Pine Street. North of Pine Street there is residential development, for zoning of R-15 and commercial development zone, L-O. To the south the property is zoned RUT and there is a proposed church, which will be located there. To the east we have the Ten Mile Drain and to the east of the Ten Mile Drain it's zoned RUT, it's in agricultural use now. To the west of the subject property we have Ten Mile Road and to the west of Ten Mile Road the property is zoned RUT and its use is agricultural use. Let's see, I wanted to go through, before we get into the staff report, what the Comp Plan designation for the subject property is. The Comp Plan designates this as a mixed-use community area and this is also located north of what the Comp Plan designates to be a potential transit station. The proposed project -- let's see. Which I will -- which features commercial retail uses, I can see on the left side, the west side, and 4-plexes, which will be multi- family, as well as multi-family residential lots or apartments above the retail on the west edge of the property. We find that this -- staff feels this is very compatible with the Comp Plan designation for mixed-use community. And I'll read you a little bit of the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan reads the mixed-use community designation is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses and, when feasible, multi-family residential uses will be encouraged. I'm going to go through some of the special considerations I had for this project and I'll go ahead and show some elevations. You can see what they are predicting the project will look like. This will be -- this will be the retail components and they are proposing to have two of these retail commercial buildings to have the residential lots located above their retail. Here are some more elevations. This is their proposed signage. Okay. I will go back to the elevations. Some of the special considerations I had -- the applicant is asking for residential above the retail in two of the commercial buildings. This request is not specifically addressed by our zoning ordinance, but this is supported by our Comp Plan in the mixed-use designation for that piece of property. The applicant, for their two amenities for the planned development, is proposing micropaths, which would improve connectivity within the development, and a half acre park, which would include a tot lot. I wanted to note that the half acre park -- actually, I think it's a .67 acre park, does not meet the ten percent requirements for open space that's called out for in our ordinance. They are asking for alternative compliance and the tot lot in combination with the park, they are asking to have that count as an amenity in the project. Let's see. I'm going to show another submittal. The staff met with the applicant this past week and the applicant has submitted revised elevations for the 4-plexes. Originally staff was concerned with the lack of landscaping on the 4- plexes and also with the vehicular access. We were concerned it was going to be a tight access point for the vehicles to move to -- actually, if you see to the north, you can -- that's where they have garages and proposed carports and we were concerned it would be difficult for particularly larger cars to access those garages and carports. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 63 of 91 applicant worked with us and submitted drawings -- lets see -- drawings depicting how vehicles will access these garages and carports. The applicant also submitted this revised elevation showing -- they made a couple of substantial improvements putting landscaping in front of the 4-plexes and they have added windows to the garages to kind of break up the front. We wanted to emphasize the applicant has been very amendable to working with staff to improve the project. Oh, there, actually, were a couple more design features. They added some colored concrete and arbors to soften up the front of the 4-plexes. The staff -- let me back up. Staff supports this project. We feel that this is the type of development that really meets the Comp Plan designation for the subject property and really is what a mixed-use development is supposed to be. Are there any questions of staff? Centers: Commission? I have one question. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Centers: While we are waiting. Did you see their brochure? Kirkpatrick: I did. Centers: It says 56 total living units, 28 town home duplexes. You have 28 single- family on your report. Kirkpatrick: Actually, we consider it to be single-family attached homes. That's our -- how we designated those in the code. Centers: Okay. Zaremba: And they are 4-plexes, not duplexes, is that correct? Centers: According to this they are duplexes 28 times two is 56. Of course, the applicant will address that. I guess I didn't hear any comment on the 10-foot driveways. Kirkpatrick: Oh, actually, okay, that was noted in the staff report and the applicant -- originally Public Works was concerned with the possibility of -- if a vehicle were parked on the driveway in front of the garage, the tail end of the vehicle would hang out onto the street. The applicant has proposed to ask for a setback of 10 feet to move the buildings to the back of the lot, which would alleviate that problem. It will be extending the driveway -- which we think is definitely a better -- is definitely the best solution to the problem. They are asking for a reduced setback, but no -- Zaremba: Reduced rear setback -- Kirkpatrick: Reduced rear setback. Zaremba: -- to accomplish a greater front setback? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 64 of 91 Kirkpatrick: Correct. Centers: All right. Zaremba: This probably is a question for the applicant, but comment, if you would, about the residential areas above the commercial areas. Do we have any -- I'm not sure what a loft means. Do we have an idea of what square footage these are going to be? Do they need any garages for cars? Kirkpatrick: That's actually -- that's a question for the applicant. I don't have a rendering of what those would look like and I want to make a correction to my staff report. There are actually 14 4-plexes. They are not single-family detached or duplexes. Centers: Okay. Is the applicant here? Good. Ralphs: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Rod Ralphs. I live at 2730 North Greenbelt Place in Meridian. I'm here on behalf of DTE Development, LLC, the developers of the proposed project. Just want to give you a little bit of background and, then, field some of the questions posed by the Commissioners. This is an 11-acre parcel -- if we could go back to the plat, please, one more back. Okay. This is an 11- acre parcel, just a shade over 11 acres they’re on the southeast corner of Pine and Ten Mile. Currently to the north you have single-family residents and agricultural uses, pasture land. There are some livestock there. To the east you also have agricultural uses and pasture land, along with the drain. To the south is the proposed church that we are working with, with putting together different services that are required by the city. Then, to the west we have more agricultural land. We will be placing on our plat notice to all of our business owners and homeowners that, you know, they are surrounded by agricultural land right now and as long as that's a concern, any noise issues, farm animal issues, you take it as you find it, so we would be putting that on our plat and I know that's a question the Commission usually wants us to put in, so we will be doing that. Currently, as staff has indicated, the property is designated a mixed-use community. What that does is that allows us -- or least guides us into producing a project that has both mixed-use commercial, residential, and part of the commercial we are putting offices and retail in the different buildings and I'd like to talk about the commercial first, if I may. You see here towards the northwest corner, that is a proposed gas pad site and this large building here that's got the angle in it is Building A. Building A is going to have retail below -- it's a large building, it's 9,460 square feet and, then, upstairs we will have the lofts. In answer to your question about the lofts, these are going to be residential lofts no carports or garages are proposed for these. They will be in square footage anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 square feet. Here on the back side of Building A is Building B and if you see -- and we will go down here in the renderings in a moment, but Building B is a stand-alone. There is kind of a courtyard feature that you also find in the recommendations for mixed-use applications that where you have adjoining buildings that is for office or retail, that we would provide some type Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 65 of 91 of a courtyard feature. Going down here to Building C, this is another building that would have retail below and it would have the lofts upstairs. The lofts -- you would probably find something similar like a studio type arrangement, a studio apartment type arrangement, but I don't have an elevation or layout for you this evening. Going back here to building -- let's see, A, B, C -- this would be Building D. That's a proposed bank site. Then, these two other remaining buildings here are the commercial and they will be both office. These are two story office buildings, 3,000 down, 3,000 up for both of them. Do you have any questions for me on the commercial? Zaremba: Yes, I do have one. First, let me say we keep asking for people to bring us interesting and intriguing things and -- Ralphs: And we succeeded. Zaremba: -- congratulations. Ralphs: Thank you. Zaremba: But there are issues we are going to have to discuss. Ralphs: Certainly. Zaremba: This is exciting to see something that's actually interesting for a change. I guess my question -- I like the idea of proposing lofts above some of the store fronts and my question would be about Building A, probably. If that's going to be a gas station and a convenience store, that's probably long hours of operation, early in the morning and maybe even 24 hours, but how practical is it to choose that building to have the lofts over? Residential may not enjoy having a 24-hour store below them. Ralphs: And we could address that when we find -- when we identify the tenants later on with that. That would be something that would drive the marketability of those lofts or where they ultimately would go into a -- more of an office type application. Zaremba: And, then, you might shift the lofts to one of the office buildings. Ralphs: Exactly. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: And the parking for the lofts, you're just proposing it would be the parking within the commercial area? Ralphs: Yes. And I would refer the Commission to the staff report. It indicates we have met and exceeded the parking requirements for this project. We have added some -- we have added some buffer. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 66 of 91 Zaremba: No on-site storage for the people that would be living there? Ralphs: There is, actually, a number of storage units -- in fact, there is a storage unit actually right over in here on the other side of the railroad tracks. Zaremba: That's true. Ralphs: There is a considerable size storage unit there and, then, there is also one way up above there on Ten Mile and Ustick. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted a clarification from the applicant on whether when you -- when you did your parking counts, whether you accounted for the commercial uses, as well as the apartments that are proposed. Ralphs: Yes, we did. Kirkpatrick: So, will there be -- so, will there be any shared parking or will there be assigned spots for the residential uses? Ralphs: We can reserve those spots. Kirkpatrick: And it would exceed the parking minimums? Ralphs: Yes. Kirkpatrick: Okay. Centers: I have a question for staff and the applicant. We have one large commercial lot; correct? With proposed buildings? I don't see separate lots. Kirkpatrick: Actually, there are three commercial lots. Centers: The bottom line question is any building that goes in there they have to come back for a CUP. Maybe not. Kirkpatrick: I know for sure that the bank and the gas station will have to come back for a CUP. I'd have to look at the code to make sure that other -- to determine whether the other applications would have to come through for a CUP. The bank and the gas station would have to. Centers: Does the applicant know that? Ralphs: Yes. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 67 of 91 Ralphs: Now, I'd like to turn your attention -- and just one other thing, just to let the Commission know, we -- one of the things that we like about this project and including some of the residential in here. We did pay close attention to the Comprehensive Plan in looking at this possible transit station of -- not only is this going to be an employment destination, people coming into work at these shops. Also anyone would be able to -- really within just a few hundred feet be able to walk out of their home or their loft to be able to connect to this public transit system. We wanted to make that accessible and it would cut down on vehicle flow. Turning your attention now to the residential applications and as a point of clarification, can we go down to the one that would show the front elevation? Oh, that's prefect. Let's stop right there. That was good. As staff has indicated, we are asking for some changes to the setbacks and in working with staff what we have wanted to do is to created a very attractive appearance as you were coming down those streets, so that you were not looking at just a solid wall front of garages. We will go down here in a moment to the elevations, but we have actually staggered the entrances to the garages as well, so you're not looking at a solid face. Coupling that with the landscaping and the trelliswork above these, we tried to break up those outlines and softens it quite a bit with the green work. Could we go down to that elevation now, please? Perfect. Thank you. Just a point of clarification. These are attached duplexes. Now, does that still equate to four? Yes. These are going to be town home duplexes. You will have a unit in the bottom that will be a three-bedroom unit and, then, the unit upstairs is going to be a two-bedroom unit. The property line is going to dissect this building or bisect. These are going to be townhomes and they are going to be marketed as for sale townhomes and so a person would be able to live in the bottom and rent out the top or vice-versa. I just wanted to clarify that. That's why the count is what it is. Centers: So, you're going to market them as duplexes with a common lot line? Ralphs: Yes. Zaremba: A duplex attached to a duplex. Ralphs: Exactly. Like I said, it doesn't change the unit count, but that's exactly what we are going with. Could we go up one, please? Okay. Our landscape designers have done a wonderful job in setting this out and I wanted to clarify. This would be a top view of these 4-plexes or the townhomes. Here you see the enclosed garages and, then, you would be able to access -- and these are breezeways or these would be covered parking or carports. What you see here would be stamped or colored concrete. This would be the stamp pattern here. It's kind of a flagstone pattern here that's represented. We have included a landscape buffer here between the carport area and the unit itself and also here on the sides. We have done that on both sides all the way along there. As you're coming down the road like this, you're seeing the side here of the building, plus the garage, and, then, you're picking up some landscaping. Now, if we could go up to the one before that that would show the layout of the different cars. One of the biggest concerns when putting together something like this is just exactly how are people going to get in and out and what kind of vehicular flow are we going to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 68 of 91 have. What you see -- these larger vehicles that we have drawn in here are the size of Suburbans, so they will be fitting inside. We can address with CC&Rs on-street parking. We are not going to permit any permanent on-street parking. The driveway there, these cars you see here in the driveways, those will be for quest parking. We would actually have two cars per unit. One would be able to come into the garage and the other one would be able to share a carport and so you would have two parking places per unit. Centers: Four per duplex? Ralphs: Yes. Centers: Okay. Ralphs: That's correct. We wanted to show this, that we have created a courtyard here with some landscaping features that would allow people to get in and out and address their parking needs that way. These cars down here, we will have them -- and if you have got them in your book or in the report, these are identified as guest parking. We are not going to have any permanent in front of the garage either. We want to keep this project looking really clean. Zaremba: On that subject, are you going to identify that they can only be there a certain number of hours a day and -- if somebody in unit three has a guest that's -- Ralphs: There for a month. Zaremba: -- there for a month and leaves their car parked in front of unit one's garage -- Ralphs: Then, we would address that through the apartment owners -- the homeowners association. And there are ways to define that that addresses that concern. Zaremba: Okay. I'm just trying to keep the neighbors friendly with each other. Ralphs: That's right. That's a great point. Could we go -- could we go back up -- right there. I do want to flash back a little bit here to the commercial. You can see that we are going with a higher quality commercial application on all of these. Building D, again, being the bank and you can see the drive-thru. Building E and F, these are the two different -- there is an entry and, then, there is just an elevation. This would be on the east side of both Buildings E and F and, then, this would be the side that would face that courtyard area. Then, Building B is, actually, the one that fronts and you would actually go through that arch in the two buildings into the courtyard area. That concludes the presentation. There are a couple things I wanted to point out on the setbacks. I know there are some questions on that in the report. We had asked -- and as you see there on page two where we are starting to talk about setbacks -- I don't Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 69 of 91 know if you have a revised one there, but the city requirements, for example, for a front setback is 20 feet. What we are asking for to accommodate that buffer of landscaping that we put in there between the car parking area of the unit is 18 feet. We are asking for two feet there. Also there on that report you will see the front of the house is 15 feet. It's actually going to be much farther than that, because the front of the unit is, actually, back behind the garage. The rear setback is the one that we are requesting to accommodate the off-street parking and also to accommodate the landscaping concerns between the parking areas and the unit it self. Zaremba: Just to do the math, if you originally proposed a ten-foot setback to the garage and a 10-foot rear, as you change the front garage to 18, that leaves you with only two feet as a rear setback. Ralphs: No. We would go with the math that I proposed. It should have gone with an 18. I guess what I'm suggesting is that that would be a typo. Zaremba: Eighteen would be -- Ralphs: Eighteen would be the front. Zaremba: -- the front garage -- Ralphs: Yes. Correct. Zaremba: But if you take that out of the rear setback, which was going to be ten, that only leaves you two. Ralphs: Right. It is actually going to be 10. What I'm saying is that the original math that was put in on the application was not accurate. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Ralphs: I wanted to direct the Commission's attention now going back to page seven of the report. There were a couple of issues raised by staff that we wanted to address this evening. Items Number 9 and 10 address phasing lines on the Preliminary Plat. This project is not going to be carried forward in phases. It's going to be just all at once we are going to be moving forward with it, depending on how market conditions are. We don't have phase lines and we don't have a calendar for different phases. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I wanted a clarification. Are you including the commercial in that, that there will be no phasing at all in the construction? Zaremba: I was going to ask is there a phase between the commercial and the residential? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 70 of 91 Ralphs: No, there is not. What we anticipate doing is completing -- and if we could go to the site. Perfect. If we proceed here first, for example, and if the market determines that the residential is built out first, we would still, because we are not doing phasing, we would still be putting in all of the landscaping and all of the improvements along here. And that was the concern when you start talking about phasing -- I read in the report that when you start wondering if we are going to do it in phases, does the front look like a moonscape until you finally get caught up and the answer is no, we are going to go ahead and green that up. Actually, depending on the speed with which the commercial buildings go in, we could have some really nice mature landscaping as these buildings go in. Again, looking at some of these other points raised by staff, I wanted to direct your attention to Page 11, third paragraph down, addressing the front of the garage setback. If you go there to the bottom line of that paragraph -- well, actually, if you just take a look at that whole paragraph where it says front of garage setback, if you go there to the end of the line where it says the applicant wishes to reduce the front of garage setback to ten, that should read 18. We need to modify that, if you don't have that, staff. Then, also, if you go down to the bottom there where staff does not support this concept if parking is proposed in front of the garages. That, again, gets to Commissioner Zaremba's point about making sure that that remains as quest parking only and that permanent parking should not and would not occupy those spaces. I have nothing further and I will field your questions at this time. Centers: I have none. Any questions? Rohm: My first question is did you have a community meeting? Ralphs: We certainly did. We appreciate that recommendation. We had it two nights ago. We invited members from 300 feet away and, then, there were also some that came from an adjoining subdivision that is beyond that radius and we took feedback from them and I can actually address some of those concerns that they raised. I imagine they are here and they'd like to share those with you as well. Centers: The only contiguous city property, then, is just to the north? Ralphs: Correct. It's the Fuller property -- Mrs. Fuller, is it in the city now? Okay. It's not. Zaremba: Didn't we annex the church? Centers: Well, we have to be contiguous someplace. Ralphs: Then, it would be the church. Zaremba: We annexed the church to the south and there was some connection that the church had to the east or something. Ralphs: That would be correct. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 71 of 91 Centers: Okay. All right. Zaremba: Am I right about that, that we did annex -- yes, I'm sure we did. Kirkpatrick: I didn't work on that application. I don't know. Our zoning map says it was RUT. I don't know if I looked at the most current source, though, of the zoning. Zaremba: It may still be -- Centers: Well, you know where it's contiguous to annex it, correct? Kirkpatrick: Yes. That's correct. Centers: Okay. Kirkpatrick: Looking at some of the surrounding uses. Probably to the north of Pine Street is R-15 to L-O. I don't know if that's contiguous. Let me put up the site map. Probably to the north, that's the Valerie Heights Subdivision and a portion is zoned L-O, which I believe is contiguous. Centers: Okay. Any other questions? Zaremba: Yes. I would -- can you index to the drawing that shows cars coming in and out of the carport? That's a good one. I agree with how easy it is to get into the carports for a car moving forward. I can understand this carport backing out and doing that. It seems like this would be pretty difficult for these guys to get out. Ralphs: That's correct. This one will probably have to do a straight back out, just like these other two right here would have to do. Of course, if these lots are not occupied, I guess, they would also be able to make that turn and go out. In response to Commissioner Rohm's question about our community meeting, as we indicated, we did have it two nights ago. A couple of points were raised. One was about the likelihood or feasibility of schooling where the children would go if we had some small ones moving into this multi-unit facility. Two elementary schools are vying for that same place. There is Peregrine, which is off of Linder where the students would be bused, that is a traditional school, and Chaparral was a year around and that is to the west there across Ten Mile. There are no plans right now with the school board anyway to erect any new elementary schools there in that general area. The other question that was posed -- if we could go back to one that would depict some of the roadways there on Ten Mile and Pine. The other question that was posed -- and there was some concern and you will hear it here from the residents of the Thunder Creek Subdivision, but during the high traffic times, which would be high school at lunch and high school at 3:30 when it gets out, traffic here becomes quite a bit of a problem and so the question posed at our neighborhood meeting is what, if any, information did we have regarding ACHD's plans for putting a signal light there. In visiting with ACHD, they provided us with a printout of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 72 of 91 their proposed work schedule for this stretch of road from Franklin all the way to Ustick. There is a different times table for all of it. The roadway from -- improving Ten Mile Road from Franklin to Pine -- and that would be making -- excuse me. Not that. Ten Mile Road from Franklin to Pine, turning that into five lanes. That project is going to start with professional services in 2004, with anticipated construction in 2007. The next phase that would go from Pine to Cherry Lane, also widening that to five lanes and, then, also widening Pine at that time to three lanes there at the entrance for the turning, the professional services on that would be -- start to be rendered in 2005 with construction completed by 2007. My understanding in visiting with ACHD is that those two times frame from 2004 to 2007, when they start to put those improvements in, that's the soonest that they would see a light and that's warranted by the car traffic counts that they do have. I think there was one more homework assignment you gave me and I forgot Number 3. Atkinson: The cut-through traffic. Ralphs: The cut-through traffic, how we could address that. I really haven't had a chance to sit down with ACHD on their recommendations. We have done a couple of things here that would render some slowing down. We have got an island here and an island here that would slow things down, but what Thunder Creek is experiencing right now that during these rush hour times that I mentioned is the high schoolers are cutting through that subdivision to avoid the delays here at this intersection, so they are using that subdivision to get there. Right now what we have here to show you tonight is that we have some traffic islands and would bring down some slowing. We could have a decreased speed limited in there and I have not visited with ACHD about the feasibility of any kind of speed bumps, if that would even be something we would want to do. I'd need to visit with them and -- you're not liking that either, uh? Okay. I think those were the homework assignments they gave me and I have nothing further, unless you have some more questions for me. Centers: Well, we had a number of people that have signed up, so -- Rohm: I have one more question. Who do you envision buying these townhouses? Retired folks? Young people -- families or -- what do you see as your market? Just curious. Ralphs: Well, we have actually -- and if you will refer back -- can we go back to the one that's the computer generated 3-D image, if we could? Anyone, in answer to the question? That's your quick one. Retirees would like this. It's close to some retail shopping and it will be close to the freeway on-ramp if it comes in here at Ten Mile. You have got a hospital in this area -- or an emergency care center. Also, as staff indicated, we have got these wondering paths and we have got a tot lot play area here for young families. I mean these could be like an entry level type where a new family would come in, they would have an investment opportunity if they wanted to occupy the lower one, the three bedroom one, and rent out the top one. You would have young families, you would have retirees, and you could have everything in between. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 73 of 91 Rohm: Just curious. Ralphs: Yes. We are providing a facility -- and, then, I did want to address the amenities that we had talked about, because the park area is smaller than what the coding is, but we have put in this wandering path. The wandering path actually cuts right through here, through these two buildings, and it meanders around in here and it will tie back into this cul-de-sac. The tot lot will, actually, be in this sand play area here and, then, this will be the general park area for general recreation. Just as a side note, the fencing as we typically see on these drains, the Ten Mile sub drain is a year around drain, Nampa-Meridian has asked us to put in things like non-combustible fencing material, so if they ever going in for weed control that they don't burn anything, so we would anticipate a six foot chain link fence there to go along the drain for the safety of the children and also to protect that easement and right of way for Nampa-Meridian. Zaremba: You're leaving the drain open? You're not going to -- Ralphs: Well, we ran into this over on Mosher's Farm, if the Commission will remember, and for sidewalks and ending the sidewalks, we had to tile back in a couple of sections for safety and so it would be whatever transition ACHD would recommend for something like that, but it certainly wasn't the whole part, because this is a drain. It's supposed to catch water. If we tile it, it doesn't work very well. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Well, we have a number of people that have signed up. I would say that if you could not be repetitive. A lot of times we hear testimony for or against and it just repeats the same thing. If you have something different, that's great. Mr. or Mrs. Garner? Got tired of waiting. Tracy Garner. The whole family. Irma Atkinson. You're up, Irma. Atkinson: Irma Atkinson, 1124 North Lightning Place, which is inside Thunder Creek, bordering on the Valerie Heights property. Yes, I'm sorry, I forgot the dress code, okay? Centers: You look fine. Atkinson: First, I crashed the neighborhood meeting and, then, I give them a list of homework assignments. I'm embarrassed. What can I say? When I look at a project I look at three different things. I look at traffic issues. I look at pedestrian safety. I look at the impact on the existing neighborhood. The good thing on this property is there isn't much of an existing neighborhood, so -- and I think the pluses are definitely that -- I think it's a good location for those -- okay, we are not calling them duplexes, we are calling them 4-plexes. For all those 4-plexes. It's close to the rail corridor and I think that's a good place for it so, I'm all for that. I like the fact they are two stories, as opposed to three stories, and I think that looks great. That leaves two concerns, pedestrian safety -- when I heard there was going to be a convenience store and a gas station and -- I think at the neighborhood meeting there was made mention that, you know, hopefully some form of restaurant, you know, sort of like out at Franklin and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 74 of 91 Linder. I thought that would be a magnet not only for my kids, but probably all the kids in the surrounding subdivisions and that was a concern to me, that except for immediately in front of the proposed development, there aren't sidewalks, so I always have a concern when I think of kids walking along Ten Mile or Pine. That's a big concern of mine. I'm sure Mrs. Wilder will address -- her kids would be some of them walking without sidewalks. I'm sure she's going to cover that. I did -- I mean I was fair about it, I did my own homework, too, so I'll pass these out. I e-mailed some of my questions to Craig Hood over at ACHD and I took issue with him, I believe, on Page 2 -- or Page 1 -- somewhere he says the district's -- the district's opinion was there is no traffic issues at this intersection and I take issue with that. I disagree, having lived there for three and a half years, you know, there is no physical improvements on the plan until 2007, so there is going to be no signal, nothing there. On Pine there are no -- other than the three lanes that taper from the intersection, there are no improvements scheduled for Pine in the next 20 years. Granted, that hopefully will change, but that's a concern to me. You know, there is -- in the ACHD report they estimate 1,436 vehicle trips per day. I think all I saw in the file the city had was there would be 560 vehicle trips generated from the residential part, but ACHD is predicting, you know, on their formula 1,436 vehicle trips on this intersection, which is already a bad intersection. I'm concerned about with Valerie Heights. I think in all fairness to them they were required and they were estimating -- Shirley, correct me -- I think it was 1,300 vehicle trips -- not even as much as this and they were, as a condition, you know, requested to put in a signal and sidewalks. I, think in all fairness, you know, something needs to be done at this intersection. You know, this is 2003. 2007 is a long ways away when you think of kids walking, when you think of traffic backing up there. Those are my concerns. Of course, the high school kids cutting through there, I mean that's a given to me that, you know, they are going to come up at the end of the day on Pine and not want to sit there and wait to turn left, so they are going to take a little detour to get out on Ten Mile. You know, we see it happen in Thunder Creek very day. Several times a day. Those are my concerns. I also try not to present concerns without possible solutions and I guess if, you know, on my fantasy list, maybe, you know, I would like to see a condition of this being signalizing that intersection and putting sidewalks, you know, at least on the west side of Ten Mile from the intersection to where Mosher Farms -- you know, they have been required to put in a sidewalk to meet that piece, so that there is a sidewalk at that signal. Minimum, you know, what would I settle for minimally, I would settle for turning lanes, you know, on both Pine and Ten Mile, because I mean four years is a long time to live in that neighborhood with all that development to the north and all that traffic, it's a long time to wait. I don't think that's fair to the people that live there. Questions? Centers: You pretty much know that we can't require ACHD to do things. Atkinson: Oh, yes. I know that. You can also recommend and -- to developers, as you did with Valerie Heights -- I mean I don't think ACHD wanted -- or asked Valerie Heights to do anything. Through some, you know, negotiation -- maybe not negotiation, but some discussion they went back and offered to do things, because they knew that's what needed to be done and that's the message that Planning and Zoning and City Council gave them. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 75 of 91 Centers: Okay. Atkinson: Any other questions? Okay. Centers: Thank you. Did Lora Wilder want to come up? Wilder: Hi. I'm Lora Wilder, 3401 West Pine. We live on the dirt road just west of Ten Mile Road. If you look at that aerial view, it's the second parcel to the west of the identified one. Sorry I couldn't make the meeting on Tuesday. I had to work that night and was not able to come. I have a couple of things I want to address. First of all, I'm not against the project, I think it has a lot of great features and they have worked hard to make it a good project, but I do have a couple of concerns that I would like to address. The first thing I would like to address is we live on the dirt lane, we have only one exit out of our property to anywhere and that is that intersection and right now it's very difficult at times to turn right or left onto Ten Mile or to cross Ten Mile Road. There definitely is a traffic issue as was addressed three years ago during the Valerie Heights project and at that time the traffic services manager Terry Little wrote a letter that said that there was almost enough traffic to warrant at least a four way stop at that time and that was three years ago. If ACHD is not planning to require anything, because this improvement is in the five year plan and you can understand that, I would at least like to see at a very minimum a four way stop put in at that corner to help slow traffic and make it possible for those of us that live on that land locked piece to be able to get across the road or out on the road when we need to. The other thing is my children and the other children on that road get on the school bus -- on or off -- they get off on the corner, but they, actually, get on at 775 North Ten Mile, about 150 feet south of the intersection, which is about 80 feet away from where the entry to the gas station is going to be. There are no turn lanes, no shoulders basically on the road it's pretty narrow. I think that is going to be a safety issue and I would like to be sure that we have a safe school bus stop for those few children to get on and off the bus at that corner and I think if we did look a four way stop in that corner, which would be relatively inexpensive, it would at least help slow traffic. I think left-hand turn lanes on Ten Mile and Pine would be a really good feature to help provide safety for turning vehicles, because of the traffic that does back up there. Those are my primary concerns in looking at that corner. You know, again, I think Valerie Heights really took the lead and looked at a lot of safety issues. They were really pro-active in trying to provide a safe development that was going to benefit the neighborhood and I think that that really set the precedent and other developments need to at least -- need the same kinds of safety standards that they were required to meet or that they chose to meet to help make that project go. As a result some of those things ultimately probably derailed it, because it was a little too much. I would like to see that be at least a four way stop, maybe look at turn lanes and we really need to realize there is a school bus stop there really close to where that entry to that gas station is and maybe we can look at a solution to make that a safe place, especially in the morning when those high school kids are zooming by and if they have to stop of a school bus, they are probably going to be cutting through the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 76 of 91 development so they don't have to stop. Tthose are my concerns. Do you have any questions? Centers: Thank you. Shirley Fuller. Fuller: Hello, Commissioners. My name is Shirley Fuller. I live at 890 North Ten Mile and I live directly north of this proposed project. My husband and I looked at the plans and we love them, we think they are great. We want the mixed-use, and we want this variety, the spice that this project can bring to Meridian. I'm tired of seeing single dwelling homes all over the place and nothing but that. I mean I want something different for Meridian and I think this is an excellent project and my husband and I are totally for it. Thank you. That's all I have to say. Centers: Rod Ralphs. You signed up and you put for the project. Bert and Marie Tamas? They went home. Andrea Walter. Went home. Oh. Okay. Come right up. Walter: Andrea is at home with the baby. I'm Reese Walter. I live at 1148 North Lightning Place, up in the direction of Thunder Creek just north of this proposed project. Looking at the -- this is the first time I have gotten to see the project, I just heard rumors about it. It really -- it does look really interesting -- one of you two said you were really impressed with how interesting this looks. It does look interesting. I do have two major concerns, however. Number 1, I don't know what the requirements are for gas stations and placing gas stuff underneath the ground. However, it does look extremely close to me to the Ten Mile drainage. Perhaps you guys can -- you guys know more about that kind of thing than I do, but perhaps you guys can take a look at that. That would be a major concern is the water -- the water drainage through that area and a gas station not even a hundred feet away from the Ten Mile drainage. The second thing I do have concerns with, which was mentioned by the developer, is the flow through traffic. I see that there are those islands, they don't look like they would slow down any high schoolers, though. That would be one thing that I would suggest that you guys look at and perhaps put some requirements on. Any questions? Centers: Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this application for or against? Would the applicant -- was he making notes? Would you, please, address some of them, please? Ralphs: Let's go first to the -- to the bus stop issue. The bus is on the west side of Ten Mile? Centers: We have to -- yes. We can't have conversations back and forth either. Talk into the mike. Ralphs: If it's on the west side of the road, I don't know what we can do on that. That's not our property. As far as the setbacks and allowing some distance in there, the green berm area here that you see on our project, we are mindful of what ACHD is going to do in the way of right of way, that's going to be a 96 footer. We are going to be putting our Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 77 of 91 green space in here and, then, we are going to have our sidewalks meandering in here or, depending on -- that's what we did with Moshers, is we put our sidewalk instead of the flush with the road, we put them in here, so they can wander through, a little more visually interesting. We will have sidewalks on our property and that's what we can do and, then, of course, our sidewalks will be off the road the prescribed distance by ACHD. I don't know what more we can do about a bus stop, especially if they are being picked up on the west side of the road. That's not even where our property is. As far as traffic counts, ACHD has -- has a schedule based -- and I'm -- I can only assume that they based that on their research, which would be their traffic counts, and if while many of our intersections here in Meridian are particularly congested at rush hour times and at school times, they are driven by traffic counts and that's exactly what the response is and that's the time frame is what they have given to us. We can only go as far and as fast as ACHD will let it happen. Now, if some more traffic counts come in here, maybe they can increase that on their priority list, but I mean they are starting in 2004, which is -- we are there. As the commercial project gets in there, you're, really, one to two years away from seeing commercial in there and so it's going to be sometime before that commercial traffic adds to the count at that intersection and so the timing isn't going to be simultaneous, but I think it's going to be fairly close. The issues with the gas station, I think that would be addressed when we come in here for the Conditional Use Permit for a gas station. Anytime you install an underground tank there are certain EPA requirements and you gentlemen are very well aware of those and we will certainly abide by any requirements that they or any other regulatory agency has for them. Centers: You know, I haven't been down Pine and Ten Mile in a long time, but there is no stop sign at that intersection? Ralphs: There is on Pine, but there is nothing on Ten Mile. Centers: Okay. It's just a one-way stop. Ralphs: Exactly right. Even Mrs. Wilder's -- the dirt road, I don't think you have a stop sign there on yours, do you? I'm sorry, I did that to you again. You can ask her. I apologize for that but there isn't one on Ten Mile. Centers: Can we talk -- can anyone talk ACHD into allowing a four way stop or -- I can understand that. Zaremba: Would you be willing to advocate that to ACHD? Ralphs: Yes. I'll go visit with them. I'll go visit with them and see what it would take to get that. Certainly. Centers: It's just an accident waiting to happen when you increase traffic at a one-way stop intersection. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 78 of 91 Zaremba: And you're allowing for future right of way, which their -- do you know what they are planning there, three lane or five lane or -- Ralphs: Pine will actually have three lanes there, so it will accommodate the turn lane that was mentioned -- inquired about earlier, so you will have a left turn lane there as well and, then, you will go five lanes onto Ten Mile but I will certainly inquire. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, another option would be if they want to put a four way stop, they could petition ACHD to work with them to put in a small bus stop on the northern edge of the property there -- or the north -- it is the north? Well, a small -- Centers: City bus stop? Kirkpatrick: For the school bus. Centers: School. Kirkpatrick: If they weren't successful with the four way stop, that would be another potential solution to work with ACHD on allowing that within their right of way. Ralphs: I'll visit with ACHD and see what we can do to push that through, if at all, before this gets to Council. Centers: That would be beneficial for your self. Ralphs: Certainly. Zaremba: Let me ask two other questions. On the gas station and, of course, putting tanks in, there is already mention in here that there would have to be lining and all that sort of stuff that you know about. Have you done any kind of study about how far down the water table is? Can you even put tanks there? Ralphs: We have done our test holes, as is standard with any development, and there is no contraindication of a groundwater problem that would not be addressed successfully with a liner. Do I think we have water that's, you know, from below? I don't have that information for you. I know we have done our test holes and I know that it's still feasible to put a tank there with all the protection. Zaremba: What I was worried about is they fill up the tank and cars take gas out of it and, suddenly, the tanks only a quarter full and the water table pushes it up out of the ground. Ralphs: Exactly. Zaremba: So you'll study those things, too? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 79 of 91 Ralphs: Certainly will. Zaremba: Okay. Would there be any interest in adding a slow down -- for instance, designing this intersection, in addition to these little islands that bump out there, designing this intersection to be a traffic circle? Ralphs: Oh, a roundabout? You know, that's a really interest concept. Those are typically reserved for a high -- high traffic. I can go back to our engineers, but it's -- you're looking at some things that it would just be a really high traffic area that may even be warranted more for Pine and Ten Mile than a subdivision or a residential street. Zaremba: I was only thinking of it as a traffic calming -- Ralphs: Sure. Zaremba: Slow the traffic down. Ralphs: Sure. Zaremba: But -- Centers: Anything addition? Zaremba: I basically like the concept. Ralphs: Thank you very much Centers: Thank you. Ralphs: Appreciate that. Centers: Thank you. Zaremba: A number of the issues that have been raised. I'm sure people are aware Meridian and all the cities in Ada county really have very little control over what ACHD does. We try and we kick sometimes and we try and put the arm on developers to put the arm on ACHD. I appreciate Mr. Ralph's willingness to advocate the four way stop and I do think the signal will come eventually. It may be three or four years away, but I think they will get that done. That may be the best we can do. Centers: Well, I think he could advocate the school bus stop, per the staff comments, so -- anyway. Yes. I think it's an exciting project. It has some imagination to it. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the Public Hearing on all three items, 12, 13, and 4. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 80 of 91 Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: Okay. Motion and second to close all three Public Hearings. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Commission Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda, AZ 03-009, request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R- 15 PD and C-N zones for proposed The Courtyards at Ten Mile by Doug Campbell, Tom Bevan, DTE Developers, southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue, to include all staff comments of their memo with a transmittal date of June 30, 2003. Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 12 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Zaremba: Let's see. Let me ask one question of staff. The Preliminary Plat has been revised slightly. Do we have the latest -- what date would you put on your latest copy of the Preliminary Plat? Kirkpatrick: The Preliminary Plat has not been revised. We received elevation drawings of the 4-plexes. Zaremba: Okay so, moving the buildings back eight feet -- well, that, actually, was just an error to begin with, right? They originally -- they are 18 feet from the street to begin with. Kirkpatrick: Oh, actually, excuse me, there won't -- we have not received a revised copy of the plat reflecting that -- that change in the setbacks. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Then, I think I'm ready. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, PP 03-010, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 31 building lots and five other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-15 PD and C-N zones for the proposed The Courtyards at Ten Mile by Doug Campbell, Tom Bevan, DTE Developers. Southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue, to include all staff comments of their memo transmittal date June 30, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 7, Paragraphs 9 and 10 can Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 81 of 91 be deleted. The applicant has stated there are no phases -- or there is one phase, rather. I believe that's the motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: Motion and second to recommend approval on Item 13 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, CUP 03-020, request for a Conditional Use Permit for attached single-family residential. I would correct that to say attached duplexes, the net result being that they are actually 4-plexes, but we are doing a Conditional Use Permit for attached duplex residential, with commercial, proposed R-15 PD and C-N zones for proposed The Courtyard at Ten Mile by Doug Campbell, Tom Bevan, DTE Developers, southeast corner of North Ten Mile Road and West Pine Avenue. To include all staff comments of their memo, transmittal date June 30, 2003, with the following changes: On Page 11, the fourth bullet, front of garage setback, the first sentence should read: The applicant wishes to reduce the front of garage setback to 18 feet. The last sentence in that same paragraph should read: Staff does not support this comment -- this concept, excuse me, if permanent parking is proposed in front of the garages. Staff and Commission do agree that temporary guest parking is okay. Let's see. I believe that's it. Centers: Would you be amenable to including in the motion the -- highly recommending that the developer push ACHD for a four-way stop at Ten Mile and Pine and relocation of the bus pickup? Zaremba: Yes, I would be happy to include that. So included. Centers: Thank you. Rohm: Second. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 14 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 15. Public Hearing: PP 03-013 Request for Preliminary Plat of 5 building lots on 2.69 acres in an L-O zone for Lynnwood Plaza Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – east of North Ten Mile Road on West Cherry Lane: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 82 of 91 Centers: We are getting there, folks. At this time I'd like to open Item Number 15 on our agenda, it's a Public Hearing for Preliminary Plat 03-013, for Lynnwood Plaza Subdivision and we will start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is a Preliminary Plat application. It's located on West Cherry Lane, south of Devlin Place Subdivision, which was fairly recently approved. The property is zoned L-O. The property is actually Rezoned through a Development Agreement that was a part of the Devlin Place Subdivision. Let's see. Surrounding land uses. We have -- actually, probably immediately surrounding the subject property is all residential, but to the south and the west we have -- there is a bank that's going in and the St. Alphonsus Medical Center. Here is an aerial of the subject property and here is the proposed Preliminary Plat. It is a five lot commercial subdivision. All lots will have frontage off of Cherry Lane and there will be a single point of access off of Cherry Lane. The only comment staff really had on this project, we are asking the applicant to provide a connection to an existing pathway in Devlin Place Subdivision and the applicant has agreed to go ahead and supply -- and put that pathway in. Staff recommends approval of this Preliminary Plat with conditions. Are there any questions of staff? Centers: Any questions? Zaremba: I have one minor one. On Page 3, Preliminary Plat requirements, paragraph one, the last two sentences confused me and I think I solved part of it, but alternate pipe material shall be employed where depth of cover from sub grade to top of pipe is three feet or less. Kirkpatrick: Okay. That's, actually, a public works comments, so I'm going to have Bruce explain that for you. Zaremba: Okay. Then, the following sentence: In no case will three feet of cover from finish grade to top of pipe be accepted. Should that be will less than three feet? Three feet or more is acceptable, right? Freckleton: That's correct. Zaremba: So, in no case will less than three feet of cover from finish grade to top of pipe be accepted. Freckleton: You're correct. Zaremba: Can I add those words? Freckleton: You may. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 83 of 91 Freckleton: Thank you. Centers: Would the applicant like to come forward? Larsen: Chairman Centers, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is Cornell Larsen, address is 210 Murray Street, Garden City. I'd like to be brief tonight. We did have a handout for you. It looks like it's shown on your screen. I do have some elevations and floor plans of the buildings if you'd like to see those, so you can get a feel for what the buildings that are proposed on that site. The actual elevations of the project are on the second page, which is labeled Building A. There are two different building types that we were looking at doing and a third that we haven't really designed, but they have a little different line on each one, so we were looking at varying the roof lines a little bit, so there is a little variety on the site. As far as the staff comments went, I just wanted to make sure I clarified the one that you had talked to Bruce about on Item Number 1. I also wanted to make sure I understood item number three, which was requiring the parking area and I'm assuming that we can do that through the standard parking lot lighting, that we wouldn't be required like a 30 foot city pole, so we weren't blasting light into the back of those neighbors' yards. I'd like to keep the height down on that particular -- on the pole in that particular project. As far as the -- there was a question regarding the Landscape Plan and also one regarding the setbacks around the property. On the revised map that I have given you there is the 20-foot setback all the way around, buffer, too. The residential on the three sides of it. It's our initial intent to do this building right here first, which is shown as crosshatched on the first sheet of that handout that I gave to you. We would also be developing all the landscaping along the frontage to about a point of 40 feet short of the property line. There is currently some irrigation in here that runs up through there and in order for us to pipe that we need the water to be out of there. We would hope that we could finish this up, but it may be next spring before that last section gets done and let me look at -- and as far as Item Number 11, which was the existing Development Agreement, the existing development agreement was modified by City Council to sometime back. We do have a new Development Agreement that is concurrent with this project and we just wanted to make sure that you knew that we had modified the Development Agreement from -- it was originally part of Devlin Place to make this project more compliant with the wishes of the city. With that I would be happy to answer any questions. Centers: Any questions? Zaremba: I have two, actually. Let's see. Is it intended that all of these buildings will be one story, single story? Larsen: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Then, the other is a curiosity. The odd shapes of these lots, are there some great advantage to insuring that they all have street frontage? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 84 of 91 Larsen: I believe that that's a requirement from the subdivision ordinance, that they will have street frontage. As a direct result of that, they are odd shaped, yes. They will have cross-access easements to -- it will probably be a blank cross-access over the entire property. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. Centers: Anyone else here to testify? All right. Rohm: I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: I will second that. Centers: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Yes. Freckleton: Would you like to me address the street light issue? Centers: Yes. Freckleton: Mr. Larsen is correct, we are -- I changed the note from what I -- I normally put in standard comments. These are not going to be city-owned streetlights, these are your standard parking lot lighting. I just want to make sure that you have security lighting on site and that it -- we would highly encourage downcast lighting, so -- Larsen: Perfect. Centers: So, I guess number three could be just changed to what Bruce just said. Zaremba: I am so doing. Centers: And developer wanted to do that. I was going to take him for his word anyway. Don't want to put street lights up there. Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 15 on our agenda, PP 03-013, request for Preliminary Plat of five building lots on 2.69 acres in an L-O zone for Lynwood Plaza Subdivision by Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 85 of 91 Centennial Development, LLC. East of North Ten Mile Road and west of Cherry Lane, to include all staff comments of the staff memo transmittal date June 30, 2003, with the following changes: On Page 3, Preliminary Plat requirement Paragraph 1, the last sentence is changed to insert words to read. In no case will less than three feet of cover from finish grade to top of pipe be accepted. Paragraph 3 is changed to read: Parking lot lighting will be required within the parking areas. All light shall be installed at subdivider's expense and be downcast to avoid light on adjoining properties. End of motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 15 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Item 16. Public Hearing: AZ 03-012 Request for annexation and zoning of 24.004 acres from R1 to R-2 zones for Carol Subdivision by The City of Meridian – west of North Eagle Road and south of East Ustick Road: Centers: Item Number 16. We would like to open this Public Hearing at this time, annexation and zoning of 24 acres in the Carol Subdivision and who is going to present that for the City of Meridian? Kirkpatrick: That's me. Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for an annexation and Rezone of, essentially, portions of the Carol Subdivision. You can see the subject property is located west of the Eagle Road and south of East Ustick Road. Here is an aerial. It's, actually, kind of difficult to make out on the overhead, but 22 lots of the existing Carol Subdivision -- it's existing, fully built out, homes are constructed. Twenty-two lots of this existing subdivision will be annexed into the City of Meridian and be provided with services. Centers: How many total lots in that sub? I didn't count them. Kirkpatrick: Me either, so -- Centers: It looks to be at least half. Zaremba: I have that same question. Centers: I was just curious. Kirkpatrick: I think it's about half. All of these lots are continuously contiguous to the city of Meridian. We have had the property surveyed and we have a legal description and all lots are technically contiguous and do qualify for annexation and Rezone. The city is acting on behalf of these property owners and, actually, in 2002 originally sent out Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 86 of 91 a notice to property owners letting them know there is an option to annexation into the City of Meridian and obtain services and several neighborhood meetings were held. The applicants were not -- or people in this neighborhood were not required to annex into the City of Meridian, since it's purely optional. Let's see. This annexation has been made possible by the expansion of the South Slough sewer and water project and has made it possible to serve these residents with urban services. I think that is about it. Are there any questions? Centers: So, you have something in writing from these people that they want you to act on their behalf to annex them? Kirkpatrick: We do. We do. We have signed -- let's see what they are actually called. Centers: Kind of like what an applicant gets from -- Kirkpatrick: Right. We have signed affidavits from each of the 22 property owners. Centers: Good. Okay. Any questions? Zaremba: Yes. I have got to wonder why on earth we asked this individually. The question should have been does the subdivision want to join. To chop it up like this -- Kirkpatrick: Well, I believe the City of Meridian -- Zaremba: Enclaves are the ones who are not joining. Kirkpatrick: Right. We don't do forced annexations in the City of Meridian, so it's completely up -- up to the property owners whether they wanted to annex and -- to voluntarily annex and receive urban services. That's why it's kind of a piecemeal annexation Rezone. Zaremba: Well -- and my statement is that among themselves in their homeowners association meetings for the subdivision, they should have made that as a complete decision for all of them, either join or not join. Centers: You can't do that. You can't do that. A homeowners association doesn't have that power over an individual homeowner. You will be annexed. And I agree with the City of Meridian, they don't force it. If you want in, fine. If you don't, keep your septic and your well. Kirkpatrick: Until it fails. Centers: But I know where you're coming from. I didn't like all the -- Zaremba: Look at these little enclaves. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 87 of 91 Centers: Yes. You can't do anything about it. Zaremba: Well, we are not allowed to do that. Centers: Anyway, does this gentleman want to testify? I assumed that's why you stayed. Thurston: My name is David Thurston. I live at 1470 North Leslie Way here in Meridian. My home is one of the homes that is not on the list to be annexed and the reason I am here tonight is just I have some questions and some concerns. Just to update you, we did have a community meeting to talk about this initially when they were bringing in the sewer. We requested they bring in the water also, which they did. Some of the people were interested in connecting to the sewer, therefore, the question of annexation was raised. In order to get the water and sewer services you have to be in the city. If you don't, you can't get those services. Some of the people were interested doing that because of the age of their septic tanks. I would say there is -- it's probably close to a 50/50 split of the people who wanted to be annexed and those that don't want to be. I'm neutral. They asked us if we wanted to be annexed as a subdivision or annexed in pieces and I said let's do it either all or none. Let's not go in pieces. I'm not sure how that vote came out. Centers: Well, obviously, it didn't pass. Thurston: Obviously, they just decided to go in pieces. Centers: Right. Thurston: One of the concerns I have and the reason I was here tonight is my property -- if I can get this to work. Is this one right here. L22. In a letter that was addressed February the 12th from Brad Watson, who is the city engineer for Meridian, he was addressing some -- the questions about annexation at that time. I quote from his memo, while staff would recommend conformance to applicable city ordinances on the application, there is certain zoning ordinance requirement that likely would not serve the public interest. Among those requirements are additional landscaping, tiling of waterways, livestock, et cetera. For example, staff would not recommend piping of open irrigation laterals that are fenced off from surrounding properties. My property I have -- there is a lateral that comes in right here, goes over here and, then, goes across the street. There is also the slough which comes down here and goes over there and I'm just curious if -- maybe this isn't a question for this Commission and staff -- what happens to those open waterways? Do we have to tile them? Do you have to pipe them? That's just an open question. That's my concern, because I have -- 50 percent of my property has boundary of this irrigation ditch and if we have to pipe them, who is responsible for the cost and expense to do the piping. Centers: Good question. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 88 of 91 Thurston: Now, the slough is quite large, as you probably are aware. It's quite large. The irritation ditch by my place is just -- it's just small and, of course, there would have to be -- if there are concerns about those open ditches, which there probably should be, I think those questions have to be answered. I'm surprised there aren’t more people here. I'm really surprised but maybe it's the Fourth of July, too. Centers: Yes and this meeting tonight was scheduled 20 years ago. Thurston: On, yes. We have known about this for sometime. Centers: Well, I mean it just happens the first Thursday. Thurston: Yes. Exactly. There is no control over that. Centers: We didn't pick it. Thurston: Right. I'm sure. Centers: As the one letter inferred. Thurston: Yes. Centers: Staff, do you want to respond to the gentleman's -- Kirkpatrick: I can respond to a portion of that, then, I will hand it over to Bruce. It's, actually, the subdivision ordinance which would require the tiling, it would not be the annexation or the Rezone that would require a tiling and I'll let Bruce handle the rest. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mr. Thurston, we kicked that idea around a little bit when we were drafting the report. Wendy is correct, it's in the subdivision development ordinance where you find that section on piping of ditches and I was pretty concerned about trying to impose something like that on individual property owners and the cost associated with it and that sort of thing and so we didn't touch it and, you know, I guess I stick by Brad's earlier comment about -- you know, what he stated about tiling those ditches. Mr. Thurston is correct, South Slough is a large ditch. I think it would probably qualify for the waiver through City Council. Typically, they have been going with a 48 inch diameter threshold whenever a ditch requires a pipe greater than 48 inches, they get a waiver. Centers: Well, is a wavier required here? Freckleton: No. Centers: What are we saying? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 89 of 91 Freckleton: No. This is an annexation and zoning. We are not doing a subdivision here. Centers: Yes. Exactly. Exactly. Page 5, Number 2, is that really needed in there? All future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian Ordinances in effect at the time of development. I mean is that really necessary or is that common language for a -- Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I think -- I don't think the comment is necessary. I think it kind of goes without saying you annex into the city basically you're going to live by the ordinances of the city. It's kind of a little bit of redundancy. Centers: Number 1 and 3 have to be there. I pick on Number 2, because it kind of ties in with this gentleman's appearance here tonight. He doesn't want to have to do anything -- any more improvements. Freckleton: Sure. Centers: It's a developed subdivision and they are done. Thurston: Correct. Centers: I think that's for the record and your time wasn't wasted. Freckleton: No. And we appreciate you being here. Thurston: Is there a chance I could get a copy of the report? Centers: I don't have a problem with that. In fact, you can have a copy of mine. Here you go. Zaremba: Since you're here, can I ask you to -- this is another crystal ball question? Among your neighbors who are choosing not to annex at this time, are they violently opposed to it or they just want to wait until their septic system gives up? Thurston: I think the ones that are -- well, I'm neutral. I mean if you annex the whole subdivision, I don't have a problem with that. I think most of us are saying if we don't have to incur additional expenses to connect right now, there is no sense in incurring those expenses. As long as the septic tank is working, why incur additional expenses. Let's wait until it fails and, then, incur it. Zaremba: But I'm wondering whether if somebody had a failed septic system would put in a new septic or ask to be annexed and connect. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I can address that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 90 of 91 Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: Basically, if -- if a county parcel -- if their septic system gave up on them, they approach Central District Health Department for a permit to replace that system, Central District Health Department is going to turn around, contact the City of Meridian, and say do you have facilities to serve this parcel within 300 feet of the boundaries, which, in turn, I would have to write back and say, yes, we do, and they would deny the permit and the applicant -- you know, the property owner would be forced to come in and talk to the city at that point. Centers: Same way with water? Freckleton: Same way with water. Zaremba: So, eventually, it will happen to everybody. Well, then, I'm much happier about the process than I was before. Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Wollen: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, since this is kind of a novel annexation, I just wanted to reiterate the authority that the Idaho legislature gives to cities. Basically, other than the restriction of contiguous land to land that's already in the city, the legislature is very broad on the powers that are given to individual cities. One of the reasons that the code puts in for annexation is to assure the orderly development of Idaho cities in order to allow efficient and economically viable provisions of tax supported municipal services, et cetera. With the -- Mr. Freckleton's testimony concerning the sewer and water issue, that -- it helps my -- it helps me relax a little bit about that orderly development portion. Centers: Thank you. Very good. I would entertain a motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on Item 16 be closed. Rohm: I'll second that. Centers: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, TWO ABSENT Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 16 on our agenda, AZ 03-012, request for annexation and zoning of 24.004 acres from R-1 to R-2 zones for Carol Subdivision by the City of Meridian, west of North Eagle Road and south of East Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of the memo of the transmittal date June 26, 2003, with no modifications, but with the additional emphasis that there are other members of the subdivision who are not being annexed by this act. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 3, 2003 Page 91 of 91 Centers: Question for staff. Did we want to strike two or does it really -- you know, what do you think? Kirkpatrick: I think go ahead and leave it in there. It's not conflicting with anything else. Centers: Okay. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Centers: Motion and second to approve Item 16 on our agenda. All in favor? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Centers: Go right ahead. Zaremba: I move we adjourn. Rohm: Second. Centers: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:47 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK