Loading...
2003 06-19Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 19, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, June 19, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, David Zaremba, Leslie Mathes, and Michael Rohm. Others Present: Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Nick Wollen, Sharon Smith, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___ Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for June 19th and start with Commissioners in attendance. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of April 29, 2003 City Council and Planning and Zoning Joint Workshop: B. Approve minutes of June 5, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: PP 03- 012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 62 building lots and 8 other lots on 11.3 acres in proposed R-8 and R-15 zones for proposed Blooming Meadows Estates Subdivision by The Cutting Edge, LC – 4379 North Locust Grove Road: Borup: The first item is the Consent Agenda. Is there -- anyone have anything they'd like to remove from the Consent Agenda? Zaremba: I have a question on C. Perhaps it should be removed, so we can discuss it. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Should I make the discussion first and, then, we will decide if it's removed? Borup: No. Let's go ahead and remove it and, then, we will go on and do that next. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 2 of 34 Zaremba: In that case, I move we approve the minutes of April 29, 2003, and the minutes of June 5, 2003. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: In discussion with the Legal Counsel, Item C is on there and should be. Borup: No, I'm not removing it from the total agenda, just for the Consent Agenda. Centers: Okay. Borup: That's -- so, then, it will just go to the regular agenda as a Regular Agenda item. Sorry if I didn't explain that. Centers: Was your motion to approve A and B? Borup: Yes. Centers: I would second that. Borup: Motion and second, all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Then, let's -- yes. Items -- Zaremba: I don't know that it was necessary to go all through that, but -- Borup: Well, Item C would be PP 03-012, the Findings of Facts for Denial on Blooming Meadows. Go ahead. Zaremba: And my question of that is if we denied the annexation, then, we don't really need to have an opinion on the Preliminary Plat, right? We have really -- we had no issue on a piece of property that is in the county. Centers: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Siddoway can explain it all. Borup: Yes. Siddoway: I'll let Nick take it. Wollen: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, according to Meridian City Code -- and what I'm referring to is Section 12-3-3 -- yes, that would be it. 12-3-3 talks about the Commission action on any either approval or denial of a Preliminary Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 3 of 34 Plat. Now, as we all know, these are brought up a lot with CUP applications, as well as applications for annexation and zoning. The City Code does have a provision in it, which was something that I personally was not aware of and I don't believe that anybody was really aware of it until Anna Powell brought it up. It does mandate the Council, if it's their desire to, to deny the Preliminary Plat, which I believe was the voting decision of the Commission in the last meeting, to just deny it straight out, it does not go to -- that it, itself, does not go on to City Council that way. I believe -- I was not here in the last meeting, but I believe that the Commission voted to recommend denial on all three and the way the procedure goes, according to the code, now, the application -- the application for annexation and zoning and the CUP go on for -- with the recommendations to the City Council. The Preliminary Plat application is just denied by the Council -- by the Commission itself. Now, at the same time, there is another provision in -- it's 12-3-3 K, which allows the applicant to appeal such denial by the Commission. It's a round about way to do it, but this is the way -- we are following the code if we do it this way. Centers: It ends up the same way. Borup: Yes. Centers: With a little additional cost to the applicant. Zaremba: Wouldn't it be appropriate, though, to reference among the reasons for denial -- Borup: They are in the Findings. Zaremba: -- it's not annexed. Wollen: Well, and -- I see what you're saying, Commissioner Zaremba. I think that it would not be -- unless it was one of the reasons that were brought up by the maker of the motion. That would not be a reason for the denial outright and -- well, I guess since the -- there was recommended denial on the annexation -- and I'd have to go back to the minutes of the last meeting, but that may have been one of the reasons. I'm not certain about that. You bring up a good point. At the same time, the way that the code reads, the annexation decision is still up in the air, so that's -- if anybody has further questions, I -- I understand it's kind of a confusing area here. Borup: Well, I think I -- I mean City Council could still annex it and, then, the only way they could even look at the plat is with the applicant asking for a -- Wollen: And, basically, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it would be an overturning of the Commission's decision if the Commission chooses to adopt the findings and conclusions tonight. Also, with that, I must bring up that in my review of this and the Conclusion of Law Number 1 mention is accidentally made of an Accessory Use Permit, instead of a Preliminary Plat, and I apologize for that error. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 4 of 34 Borup: We need to make that correction in our motion, then. Centers: Which number? Wollen: It's Conclusion of Law Number 1. Borup: On Page 3. Wollen: Yes. Thank you. Zaremba: And if we are going to make modifications to it, I would comment on -- on the same page, Item 11 above that, applicant will need to get the owner's cooperation to annex and it's not clear who is the owner. We are talking about the owner of the out parcel. Wollen: Okay. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I would also just point out for the record that I have spoken with the applicant. They are aware of the process as it is going through. It was something new for us as staff that was discovered, so upon the discovery that the plat denies here -- or the plat dies here when it's denied. We have spoken with the applicant, they are aware of the findings for denial at the P&Z level, we have also instructed them to -- the same code as was mentioned allows for an appeal, so they need to file that appeal to have the plat considered by Council at the same time as the annexation and the CUP. That same ordinance that talks about the appeal and the appeals process in a separate section talks about the -- the appeal is not a hearing that we need to consider the appeal. If they find new information or think that it needs to be reconsidered, then, their process, rather than just overruling the Commission, is to remand it back to the Commission. Also to let you know, the property owner of Blooming Meadows and the property owner to the south, have had a meeting in our office and they are now working together to try and resolve some of those issues raised by the Commission and are working to do that. They may have -- well, I don't know what will happen at the Council level, but it could be remanded back to this body from them, if they feel that they are able to address the issues that were given as reasons for denial. Zaremba: Well -- and that's kind of the process that I personally was hoping would happen, that this wasn't the end of it, that they would get together with this other property owner and resolve the issues that we brought up. I guess this is the legal process that we have to go through, but my intention wasn't to kill it, but the intention was to get some things resolved, in which case the annexation and the CUP would also be acceptable to me. But -- okay. The question is do we approve these with these verbal changes or does -- does Nick need to take it back and bring back a clean copy? Wollen: Well -- and, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I believe that in this case that the Commission could vote to accept the conclusions -- the Findings and Conclusions based on the amendments that have been created tonight and, then, a Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 5 of 34 signature copy would be presented at some future time. I don't believe that the Commission would be forced to wait until the next hearing to accept the Findings and Conclusions, if they choose to. Borup: I think that's what we have done before back when we used to do Findings. If it were a minor change, we would go ahead and just amend it. If it something -- a major rewrite, which I can't -- I don't think that happened hardly ever. Zaremba: I'm prepared to make such a motion. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Denial of PP 03-012, to include the following amendments. On Page 3, Paragraph 11 should read. The applicant will need to get the owners of the out parcel's cooperation to annex and will also submit proof that the lot split is legal. Same page, Conclusions of Law Number 1, the end of the paragraph should read Preliminary Plat, instead of Accessory Use Permit, and -- pause for a question. On Page 4, should we add a Number 7 that says one of the reasons is that it's not annexed at this point? Wollen: And my only question, Commissioner Zaremba, was if you recall if that was one of the reasons that the maker of the motion had for denial of this Preliminary Plat. Zaremba: Having read the minutes of that meeting today, it was not stated in that manner. So, let's leave Number 7 off and conclude with Number 6. Is that what you're saying? Wollen: I believe that would be the best. Zaremba: Okay. Then, I'm finished with the motion. Borup: We have a motion. Centers: Second. Borup: And second. Roll call vote. Roll call: Zaremba, aye; Mathes, aye; Centers, aye; Rohm, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from June 5, 2003: PP 03-007 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and 7 other lots on 11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC – west of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 6 of 34 Borup: The next item is a Continued Public Hearing from June 5th , PP 03-007, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other lots on 11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development. Like to open this continued hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Clearbrook Subdivision was on the last agenda, but was continued, so the applicant would have time to respond to some of the concerns raised in the staff report. You should have some revised plans that were submitted by the applicant since the last meeting. I have a revised plat stamped June 12th by the Clerk's Office and a revised Landscape Plan stamped June 16th . Actually, the applicant has brought with him tonight some newer Landscape Plans that should have today's date on them as well. This project, Clearbrook Subdivision, is located on Meridian Road between Ustick Road and Cherry Lane on the west side. It is an already annexed piece, so we are only doing the Preliminary Plat tonight. There is no accompanying annexation or rezone. It's already zoned R-4 it's surrounded on the north by the existing Lansbury Lane Subdivision and on the south by Waterbury Park Subdivision. The property behind it to the -- to the west is currently in the county. There is, actually, a small sliver of land that is right on the property's west boundary that is not part of the project and one of the modifications the applicant made was to pull back the plat line to that edge. Here is an existing site photo. You can see the subdivisions and the surrounding pasture land to the west. This is a copy of the revised Preliminary Plat. Before I go through the staff report, let me just see -- this is the revised Landscape Plan that was originally submitted. Tonight you should have received this one, it should be stamped June 19th , and, basically, removes the street trees running east and west, because they were not required by the ordinance. Okay. Okay, on the plat. You should have a staff report that was a transmittal date of June 2nd and today's hearing date -- or the June 5th hearing date. I'm sorry. The main things I want to go with are in these special considerations on page three. The one on block length is just for the Commission's information. The block length is over 1,000 feet. They are required to submit a variance, they have already done so, and this will go onto City Council with the accompanying variance, which does have staff support. Number 2, the entrance, we have recommended that the entrance to the subdivision include an island. In the revised plat that the applicant submitted they have accommodated that island. They show the island in the right of way. The curb line was not modified to match that and is a modification to the Preliminary Plat that would still -- should be shown. However, they are fully intending to comply with that request. Number 3, the pathway, there is a pathway along the south side of the property that's required by the Comprehensive Plan along the South Slough. The applicant is in favor of accommodating that requirement and they do show on their plans a 10-foot wide asphalt pathway. Item Number 4 is the Irrigation District easement, which is not shown on the plat. We would like to have it called out. Between the original plat and this one, the lots along the south side have shrunk by a few feet, because it was discovered that the -- those lots did encroach in the original submittal into that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District easement for the South Slough. That has, apparently, been corrected, but the easement itself is still not noted and we would like to have the easement line noted on the plat. Okay. Number 5 is the micropaths. The applicant does show -- probably you can see on the Landscape Plan -- in their open Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 7 of 34 space drainage lots, they do have micropaths that connect through from the sidewalk in the subdivision to the pathway at the rear. We are simply asking that those micropaths shift five feet away from the side property line, so they are not butted right up against the fence, but have at least five feet of landscaping between the path and the fence. That modification still needs to be made. Number 6 is the open space and drainage pond issue. Due to requirements from the Department of Environmental Quality, they -- they have high groundwater out here and the DEQ is requiring a certain separation between the groundwater and the bottom of their storm water swales. Because they cannot meet the required separation distance, they are being required by DEQ to line that swale to become what we call a wet pond. It's going to be surfaced so that the water is not allowed to percolate down through the soil and has to -- it just remains on the surface and evaporates over time. We don't like that solution and it's been -- we have several examples in the city that have been a nuisance. Our ordinance related to open space prohibits such open water areas from being included in the required open space areas. I have asked the applicant to show that they have sufficient open space to meet the five percent requirement without counting those wet pond areas. Number 7 is the sidewalks, while, not depicted on the original plan, they have been shown on the new Preliminary Plat and we were just noting that sidewalks are required. As a final issue, there is a separate memo that requested the tabling of -- from Bruce and myself. We had discovered after this was written one additional issue, which was, as I mentioned a minute ago, the inclusion of the sliver of property along their west boundary into the plat. We received a phone call from the owner of that property and they asked to make sure it was removed. The revised plat as submitted by the applicant does remove that area from their plat and they are in the process of revising their legal descriptions and things accordingly to depict that. With that, I will stand for any questions. I don't know if you have anything right now, Bruce. Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes. Mr. Siddoway, you also wanted to include Item 2 on Page 3 regarding the entrance in any -- the split entry. Siddoway: Yes. They are showing that they will accommodate the split entry. They have -- it's difficult to see on this scale. Let me see the Landscape Plan. You can see on the Landscape Plan that they -- well, actually, it's on the one they submitted tonight, actually. Okay. Here is the new one from tonight that you can see that there is an island, that there is an area where the right of way bumps out. They simply need to modify their road alignment and curb to be in conformance with ACHD requirements for split entries, but they are -- they are showing the right of way to do that, they just need to tweak their curbs a little bit. Zaremba: Would you index through all of the pictures that you have of this property? There was one of them that I saw that I thought looked different than the others that I want to ask about. No. No. No. Yes. Siddoway: Okay. Zaremba: Okay. I was looking at the wrong subdivision. I was looking at Lansbury. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 8 of 34 Siddoway: Yes. It's the blank one. Zaremba: Okay. Then, that brings up my -- the rest of my questions. In ACHD's report, on Page 5 of that, under see special notification to the applicant and the City of Meridian, Item 2, they are suggesting that this -- the streets that's -- and, let's see, you can go forward to one of the Landscape Plans or something, so it does show this subdivision. That street is such a long reasonably straightaway, that the traffic from this subdivision and probably the traffic from the landlocked subdivision behind it that will have to use this street to get up some speed, they were asking for chokers, bulb outs, or islands within the right of way, in addition to the one that you asked at the entrance. The subdivision right above it has a second island farther back and my -- that is an absolutely straight road. This one has a little bit of meander. Are we satisfying traffic calming by having the meander or should we have another island as the other subdivision does? Siddoway: Certainly another island provides additional traffic calming. I don't know that the meander itself is enough. It will create some visual interest, but probably not a traffic calming affect. I'd let the applicant address that. Borup: Is anyone aware of any speeding problems on -- in Lansbury? Siddoway: I'm not. Zaremba: I'm not personally. I can see ACHD's logic, particularly when there is another subdivision farther away using the street. Pass-through traffic is -- Siddoway: The meander was shown on the original plat that ACHD was considering when they wrote that, too. Zaremba: So, they did see the meander and they still asked to have something in the way of chokers, bulb outs, or islands? Siddoway: That's correct. Zaremba: Let's see. Then, I guess my other questions were kind of bookkeeping things. On your remarks, Page 4, conditions of approval Preliminary Plat, Paragraph 2, it appears to be that they have now made that lot part of what was Lot 1. Siddoway: Yes. They made that area part of Lot 1, but the plat note itself is still missing, so they have not added the note. I have talked to the applicant, they are in agreement to add it, but it has not been added yet. Zaremba: It needs a note, but the note is for Lot 1 in Block 1, I believe. Siddoway: Yes. Block 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 9 of 34 Zaremba: Am I correct that Lot 1 is now a long L shaped lot? Siddoway: That is how I show it, yes. Zaremba: Okay. Then, that also would make a change to Paragraph 9 on Page 5 to name all common lots in the subdivision to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association, including Lots 1, 6, 13 and 21 -- no. Cross out and 22 in Block 1. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: And I would also cross out Lot 9, Block 2, because that appears to have disappeared. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: And Lot 1, Block 3 should remain. Then, it appears on the new plat that Paragraph 10 has been satisfied. Siddoway: You will need to add Lot 1, Block 4, which is the island in the middle of the road now. Zaremba: Okay. In case any other island gets added, we'd need to add that, too, but -- Okay. They did change -- on Item 10, they did change the square footage from 12 to 14, and it looked like to me on that one. Those are my only staff questions. Just making sure I was correct on those observations. Thank you. Borup: Questions from any of the other Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Cook: My name is Richard Cook -- once again, my name is Rich Cook. I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road in Boise. Most of you I am not familiar with. Borup: You need to come see us more often. Cook: Yes. Due to some changes in our staff, I have been thrown into the fray for handling applications over here in Meridian, as well as other areas of the county that we work in. I'm sure you're used to seeing Steve Arnold come before you with many different plats, what have you. I do the same thing, just less of it. We have conferred with staff and gone over their comments and what have you and we don't have any problems whatsoever with complying with the conditions that they have set forth. The little glitch with the entranceway and the sidewalks, that was a technical snafu, so we will be sure that we wrap the sidewalks around and follow the right of way to give the entrance the wider -- wider area that we require. On our open space, we have, counting our greenbelt, which will be landscaped, and our micropaths along the drainage ponds we have 1.15 acres of open space, which exceeds nearly double the required amount of five percent. We feel that the subdivision itself is very compatible Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 10 of 34 with existing developments to the north and south of us and the issue on the Ada County Highway District islands that they would like to see or another island in that street. My experience has been that those kinds of islands in mid block like you see in Lansbury Lane there become more of a traffic hazard than a safety valve, so to speak, with people trying to get around the island and other people trying to back out of their driveways. It really does create some problems and also people end up backing into the curbs and whatnot of the island itself. It really gets to be a real big pain in the neck. Centers: Going the wrong way on it? Cook: Or going the wrong way on it. That happens frequently. We really are at odds, I guess, with ACHD. They didn't -- they didn't nail us down and make us do it, they are just recommending it, and we are opposed to it. We feel that the meander of the street in the mid block -- well, not quite mid block, but intersection of -- what street is that? Siddoway: 3rd Street. Zaremba: I think it's 3rd . Cook: Is that Northwest 3rd ? Siddoway: 3rd . Cook: Okay. The intersection down there with Northwest 3rd I think will really serve us well and it will help control our traffic and the speed on that street. Like with any subdivision, the speeds on your streets, who drives the streets? The people who live there. Okay? I know when I -- you know, in my neighborhood more than once I have gone out and flagged somebody down and had a few words with them, you know, this is a residential street, we have got kids out there, slow it down. You know, I mean it becomes a self-regulating thing and if it gets to be a real big issue, then, you can always rely on the Police Department to give you some assistance in that area. I think that about wraps it up. The Variance, I think, is, again, pretty self-explanatory. We have the support of staff on that and that came about on the south side of the street, because the Waterbury Subdivision was not required to stub to the north. With that, I'll stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I think that covers most of my -- I guess my only concern -- I tend to agree that the meander is going to help, and with the island at the entrance I think that helps. My only concern on the speed of the traffic isn't necessarily the people that live in this subdivision, but what's going to happen -- your pass-through traffic are the ones that are likely to get up to some kind of speed and I wonder -- I know it couldn't be done now, where you have the turn arounds, it needs to remain a turn around, but at the time where that stub -- stub end of that turn around actually goes someplace, could there be an island put in the turn around? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 11 of 34 Cook: I think that is a very feasible solution in the future when it is extended, because we have already -- already have allowed for a turn around and we have the room there to go ahead and put some kind of an island, whether it be round or oblong or whatever, down in that turn around area. I think that's something that can be done when the road is extended. Zaremba: Yes. I'm not sure I would do it while it's still being used as a turn around, because that kind of defeats the purpose. Cook: Right. The Fire Department wouldn't like that. Zaremba: Yes. Once it's a pass through, probably on the end of your development when you're almost done with it, then, you'd have to come back in and do that little island. Borup: Would you look at – here? In redesigning that, would you be looking at moving it to the north a little bit, if you were planning for the future on that? I like Commissioner Zaremba's idea. I agree, I think just the subdivision alone, the traffic is probably not going to be a problem, but -- because I don't believe it is in Lansbury, but Lansbury doesn't have any drive-thru traffic like this one will have, potentially. Cook: That's correct. I think to make that happen at this point or to insure that it will happen in the future, we would have to modify the front lot line of those two end lots on the north there. Borup: I am assuming you have got to incorporate -- when the turn around goes away that that lot will be reconfigured as a building lot, the one to the south. Oh, I'm sorry. That's a pond anyway. Cook: Right. Right. That lot will never become a building lot. Borup: But, then, you're not going to be needing that turn around anymore. Cook: Right. The turn around -- the need for it will, obviously, go away. That particular area, I guess, could be at that time reclaimed and become part of a landscaped area. Zaremba: More open space. Cook: More open space. Correct. Like I say, the two lots to the north across from the turn around, we can make allowance on the plat to provide for a future island in that street. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 12 of 34 Centers: I noted on the plat this shows a drain pond here. Is this a development in the county? Cook: That particular area is still vacant. It's not developed. I don't know what the purpose of that drain pond is, but it's not part of our development. Centers: Your open space comment, was that exclusive of the drain ponds or inclusive? Cook: That is exclusive of the drain ponds. We have the 15-foot wide pathways, the micropaths that go along the side of the drainage areas, are 15 feet wide by approximately 101 long and those are landscaped. Centers: So, you have ten percent open space exclusive of? Cook: The drainage ponds, yes. Centers: And the staff would agree with that? Siddoway: Yes. The reason -- where it all comes from is they have the long linear strip along the south side. By landscaping that, we would let them count it. If they were just leaving it unimproved, we wouldn't want it counted, but if the applicant is willing to landscape it and have the homeowners association maintain it, we will let it be counted toward their open space and that piece along is almost an acre. Centers: Good. Do we have that in our site-specific comments from you or should it be added, Steve? Siddoway: I believe it's in there. It's Item Number 7 on Page 5. It says all areas being counted towards the five percent open space requirement shall be free of wet ponds, etc. Is that what you're asking? Centers: Yes. We are covered. Okay. Good. That's all I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Those are the two things I had, too, that both of you brought up. Other than I'm -- and this is probably something for the engineers to work out on the design. I could maybe envision a circle island down there, incorporate the present turn around, and not have to do any redesigning when the street goes through, not have any expense in the future. Still keep your 50-foot radius -- or is that -- does the radius need to increase when you put an island in, then? Do you know? Cook: Commissioner Borup, no. Once the need for the turn around goes away, the need for the radius also disappears and if you're talking like putting a circular island in there, similar to what you'd find on the traffic circle, that's something that is doable. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 13 of 34 Borup: I mean could that be done right now and, then, you wouldn't even have to do any redesigning later? Cook: Oh, no. No, it cannot, because the Fire Department would -- would really frown on that. We could not meet the radius -- turning radius requirements and street width that would be needed by the Fire Department to put that in there now. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: For now they would want a clear space in that turn around. Cook: Correct. Zaremba: There couldn't be an island right now. Cook: No. Zaremba: Is that what you're saying? Cook: Correct. Centers: Mr. Chairman, the way I feel about it -- and that's the reason I asked about the adjoining land, I can't see the point in requiring anything on this plat for this developer, but I think we need to require it of who develops this. Borup: Because they are the ones that are going to be causing the problem. Centers: Right. I can't see putting that on the back of this applicant, but if we all are here when this guy comes, then, that would be a different story. That's my feeling on it. Zaremba: I can agree with that logic. I'm not sure I would remember it when it comes up. Borup: You will remember it. Zaremba: I'll remember it. Cook: No. If it's -- you know, if it's an issue today, it will certainly be an issue whenever this -- Borup: And ACHD would hopefully still have the same comment. Cook: Right. Centers: They are good. Cook: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 14 of 34 Borup: Do we have anyone else? Any other Commissioners have -- Zaremba: I have no more. Borup: Okay, anyone else to testify on this application? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, the only comment, then, that we have probably all received a letter from a Mr. Christopher B. -- probably Broer -- I'm not sure. It's Broer or something like -- who doesn't give any address, so we don't know how near he lives to this proposed subdivision, but he expresses his displeasure, essentially, with all the growth that's going on. Centers: I read it. Borup: I thought he was also quite disgusted with this prime farm ground being gobbled up. I wonder if he's looked at that private farm ground. Zaremba: Just thought that should be noted. Borup: Okay, any final comments from staff? I assume we are okay on sewer? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I have got a few things. The discussion of the turn around on the end, I just wanted to -- there was some discussion here tonight that you might want them to come back in and build that afterwards. Borup: I think we have re-thought that. Freckleton: Okay. It might be 10 years before that property out to the west develops and this developer could be in Tahiti, so -- the only other thing that comes to mind is, you know, if you did want to have a requirement on this development for some sort of traffic calming for the future, there might be an avenue of doing a road trust with ACHD, having this developer put up money for the road trust for that improvement in the future. I think the drawback to that is -- I think ACHD can only hold funds for so long and if they are not spent they have to return them, so I think that's -- that's an issue there. The only other item I wanted to point out -- and this is really the only big item that I have a problem with is with this development and that is the design of these wet ponds and I just wanted you to be aware of what these are and what they look like, and the kind of problems that we have had. I'd like to show you some photos of some of them that we have taken throughout the city that we've had problems with lately and -- this one here is in Devlin Place Subdivision. You can see the bottom, the standing water. This, actually, looks really good in this picture, compared to what it looks like today. I wish I would have gotten a current picture. Borup: Now, is that weeds or was that planted to -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 15 of 34 Freckleton: It was hydro seeded. Well, the hydro seed doesn't grow, because it's under water, so now we have cattails and all kinds of nasties growing in there. The developer on this one is currently working with ACHD to come up with a remedy to the situation. They still haven't landed on one yet. This particular pond is lined and the bottom of it is lined with the Bentonite seal. They come in and they spread the material on the ground and they till it with a tiller and rake it out and it puts the clay into the soil and Bentonite is a material that when it gets wet that's when it expands and it seals. Let's look at the next picture. This picture is in the same subdivision. This particular pond is not lined and the bottom of it is not lined. They were able to meet the three-foot separation. You can see how nice these things can look. Centers: So, excuse me, Bruce, what are you saying? Maybe they are better not lined. The lining them tells me that, you know, you're creating a swimming pool. Freckleton: The lining is what causes the standing water problem. That causes the weed growth and the mosquitoes and the algae and everything else. That's -- no question about that. Centers: So, who is requiring the lining? Freckleton: The lining is being required by ACHD, because of rules with the Division of Environmental Quality. Zaremba: And that has to do with where the water table is -- Freckleton: Correct. Zaremba: -- is that correct? If it is within three feet of the surface, then, they have -- Freckleton: That's correct. Zaremba: -- so it doesn't contaminate the water table. Freckleton: That's correct. Now, part of the problem the design community has right now is you got two state agencies that are on the same track headed towards each other. You have Central District Health Department that's fighting the mosquito problems and West Nile virus and everything else and, then, you have DEQ requiring the creation of these, so -- Zaremba: What regulations are there on changing the grade of this area? What -- using -- well, even this picture as an example. If they went around the perimeter of this holding pond and bermed the perimeter of it two feet higher, then, they would be allowed to have the base of it two feet higher and maybe be out of the lining, so -- Borup: But the water has got to gravity drain. Freckleton: Yes. The problem is the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 16 of 34 Zaremba: Apparently, it's okay if it filters through three feet of dirt, it's okay to get into the -- Freckleton: It is. The water that gets into these ponds comes off the streets and gravity flows into the catch basins and goes into a sand and grease and has to flow through those and, then, back out again, so it's coming out at an elevation that's lower than streets. That elevation -- Zaremba: Okay so, just raising the pond doesn't solve the -- Freckleton: No. No, because that elevation is pretty much fixed by the location -- or the elevation of the street grade. The engineers really have a lot -- a tough one here. I don't know -- I wish I had a good solution. I would be very rich. Zaremba: Okay. Freckleton: This is that same pond in Blackstone, Coral Creek Subdivision. This pond was not constructed properly. The way this one works is the water flows in, there is a couple of pipes on this end of the pond, the water flows into the pond, is supposed to travel through the grass and, then, is supposed to go out through a pipe here that goes over into Ten Mile Creek. The problem is that during construction this pond was not built properly, the bottom of the pond was too low, it does not slop to the drain and this is the result. They have gone in and rehabbed this pond, re-graded the bottom of it, and we are still kind of -- the jury is still out on that one. This is in that same subdivision. You can see how the bottom of it is standing water here. I don't know if you can tell, but right here is the outlet, well above this water elevation here, of where that water is suppose to get out of this pond, so -- Centers: But, Bruce, to the best of anyone's knowledge, other than maybe mosquitoes and that type of thing, it's not a major health hazard. My concern is that -- or I would like to see the buyers aware of this beforehand, if we approved it, with a note on the plat that the drainage ponds have been developed to comply with certain standards, meaning the lining, et cetera, and spell it out on the plat, and that said lining could cause standing water. Thank you. Buyer beware. Freckleton: I think it's an excellent idea to make the buying public knowledgeable of these things. I don't think that the final plat is the proper document to do that. Centers: Where do you do it? Freckleton: The CC&R's would be a good place. Putting a note in the Codes, Covenants, and Restrictions -- Centers: Well, you could do both, then. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 17 of 34 Freckleton: Every buyer -- a Final Plat is a document that is -- it's a survey document, it's not really a document that's supposed convey that kind of information. Centers: Well -- and, you're right, the buyers usually don't see that until they sign at closing and, then, it's a small -- small item that they can barely read. Freckleton: Right. Right. Centers: Right. Freckleton: I wish I had a good solution to these -- Borup: That's what I was just going to ask. You have brought up some good points. Are there any recommendations to solving it, other than getting rid of DEQ? Freckleton: I wish had a good recommendation. You know, there was some discussion -- I had a pre-construction meeting on a subdivision a couple weeks ago and they had a situation similar to this that they were talking about in a subdivision in Boise. They made some modifications to the sand and grease trap, which, basically, the outfall from the sand and grease trap was at a higher elevation than they normally are. By discharging into the pond at a high elevation, they were able to raise the bottom of the pond to a higher elevation and, you know, maybe with some modifications to, you know, some of the tools we have available to us, like these sand and grease traps, maybe the separation could be attained. I don't know. I think it merits, you know, looking into to try and avoid these situations. Borup: I think it makes sense for the developer, if there is another alternative it's certainly going to increase the value of the property, too. Freckleton: Right. Right. You know -- and when you shallow up the bottom of the pond, it's going to chew up more real estate, because you have to change the geometry to -- to contain the same volume of storm water. You're going to have to spread them out if you're going to make them shallower, so it eats up more real estate. Getting back to -- just to what Jerry said, you know, about the health hazard, beyond the mosquitoes, you know, the only other thing is we have had some where we have had, you know, the green algae growth and you get a lot of stagnant water smell off of them and you could have children playing in that and -- Mathes: How come you can't make them ponds and put circulating pumps in them? Borup: There is not a consistent supply of water, is there? Unless you had a consistent supply of water. Is there anything being done with the drainage -- or the drainage pits anymore? Is that -- Freckleton: Oh, yes. Yes. We will see them go in -- you will -- the only areas that they work, though, is when you have, you know, ground water at 12-foot of depth to where Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 18 of 34 you can get the three foot of separation and have a seepage pit that's five or six feet tall, so -- Borup: I was wondering if anyone's looked into if you can combine the drainage with the pond and being able to raise -- still have the Bentonite in there, have the large drain rock, and, then, cover that with top soil to have the green space. Freckleton: No. It would create a gallery for the water to go to, but it's just higher. A drain field. Borup: And it would be under the grass. Freckleton: There was a -- there was a drainage bed -- or drainage pond that Ada County Highway District constructed right there, just north of the Waterbury Park Subdivision. That pond -- well, there is a story to that one. That pond -- there was a lot of complaints flying in, because it had water in it and it was nasty and so ACHD came in and their solution was they dumped in several truck loads of large river cobble. I mean it made it look a little bit better, but that water is still going to be there. Then, that one also is enclosed in the chain link, a six-foot high chain link fence to try and keep kids out, and garbage. Borup: Okay. I don't know what that accomplished, but it was interesting. Freckleton: Well, I don't know either. My main purpose in that dissertation was just to try and show you what the potential is for these ponds. Borup: Mr. Cook, do you know whether you have looked into any of the alternatives on trying to -- Cook: Commissioner Borup, like Mr. Freckleton pointed out, if we had a solution, he and I would be very rich. The suggestion of putting in large boulders and what have you and, then, covering that with soil or sod or whatever, again, as Bruce pointed out, the water still goes in there and the problem that that would create is you would have the water going in and absolutely or virtually no evaporation whatsoever, so you'd really end up with a major stagnant water situation between your surface and the bottom of your pond. I'm -- Borup: Are these ponds draining, then, into the ditch? Cook: No, they are not. Borup: So, they are not designed like some of the other examples he showed? Cook: No. No. We have -- we have nowhere to -- Borup: They wouldn't allow that to go into the -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 19 of 34 Cook: South Slough? Borup: Yes. Cook: No, they won't. The only -- Borup: Why is that, when they have allowed it in other areas? Cook: Irrigation. Irrigation water. Borup: The South Slough is strictly irrigation? Freckleton: It's drainage. Cook: It's all drainage they don't use of it for irrigation? Borup: That's what I thought. I thought it was drainage. That's why I asked. Cook: Well, let me make a note to myself and I will look into that a little bit. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, that is one question I did have that I failed to ask. Throughout the documentation that has been provided they have been referred to as retention ponds. By definition, a retention pond is a temporary holding facility until it can discharge to a surface ditch. I wanted clarification on that, too, it doesn't call them detention ponds, and it calls them retention ponds. Centers: Mr. Cook, couldn't you have a -- you know, at the low point of that retention pond have a collecting area and have a pump and pump it into the outlet area when it became severe, as it is -- as it is in that one picture at Devlin Place? Couldn't you do that? Cook: Commissioner Centers, yes, if we have a place that we can pump into. Centers: Yes. Well, you have to have an outlet for that pond. You don't? See page. Cook: At this point we don't, it's not -- it's not even seepage, it’s evaporation. Centers: Evaporation. Cook: Evaporation pond. The only thing I can say that's really majorly different from -- between our ponds and the ones that Bruce was showing, is that ours are nicely landscaped. We do have the wetland grasses for the bottom of the pond and, then, we have trees and shrubs that will be around the ponds themselves, so they won't be quite as ugly, but that still doesn't solve the water -- the standing water problem. I'll certainly look into the possibility of us being able to discharge into the South Slough and what the feasibility would be of -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 20 of 34 Centers: Right behind you? Cook: -- some kind of a pump. Correct. Borup: Well, would you even need a pump? I mean the others are designed to gravity flow into the other, as long as you get the grade right. Cook: Exactly. That's something that we will have to look into to see if the grade would allow a natural draining and I'm not, you know, at all certain if you can entirely eliminate all of your standing water all the time. You're going to have some standing water there occasionally. Centers: Well, I think it would just help your marketing effort. Borup: But you're also saying you're doing some wetland grasses. Cook: Correct. Borup: And they will grow, rather than -- Cook: Rather than die out and become an ugly mess. Borup: Not sure why some of the others haven't tried that. Cook: I don't know. We have adopted -- in fact, the City of Meridian has adopted the ordinance from Boise for landscaping and for -- what is it, Steve, wetlands or -- Siddoway: Our list of approved plant material? Is that what you're referring to? Cook: You made a reference to it. Siddoway: The landscape ordinance itself prohibits the -- Cook: Correct. Siddoway: -- the wet ponds from being included in required open space. Cook: Correct. Correct. I'm referring to the types of vegetation and what have you. Siddoway: Yes. We have an improved tree list that comes from the City of Boise that we have adopted as our own. That regulates the trees that are allowed. It does not get as specific as the grasses and things, but, you know, certainly the addition of true wetland grasses, which they are designing in, is much preferred over what others have tried to do, which is just put hydro seed, blue grass there, and it doesn't work. Zaremba: I'm not sure if Mr. Cook meant his question to be this way, but it occurs to me what if we planted water soaking trees in there? If you put in -- I don't know if orange Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 21 of 34 trees grow here or not, but -- well, cottonwoods and poplar kind of trees soak up a lot of water and would evaporate them into the air. I mean there are other ways to move water out of a -- I mean when you want poplars, you got to put a lot of water on them, so maybe we could use them in reverse. Siddoway: That would work if the water was able to get to the roots, but if it's Bentonited, it will never get to them and -- to be evapotransporated. Zaremba: Good point. Siddoway: Yes. Cook: I'd like to import some Cypress trees or something from Florida that would work great. Borup: Well, it sounds like you're going to look into trying to -- discharging into the South Slough, which will solve a lot of problems that -- Cook: Yes. Yes. That's one area that -- where I -- you know, I was under the impression that the South Slough was for irrigation, rather than drainage, but I'll look into that for certain. Centers: Would you object to -- are you going to allow children to play there if they want? Cook: There is going to be a micropath adjacent to that. Anyplace that is not protected by a ten-foot fence with barbed wire and guards is susceptible to kids. Centers: So, would you object to a sign at that location: Storm drain pond. Play at your own risk? Cook. Not at all. Centers: Okay. That's the way I would like to address it, because I have the same situation in my subdivision and -- standing water and they tried to remedy it with a volleyball court and hauled in a lot of sand and we haven't had a problem lately, but I'd like to see the buyers, before you sell any lots, know that it's a storm drain pond, play at your own risk, and, then, I don't have a problem. Buyer beware, if you can't read the sign, then -- what do you think, Chairman? Borup: Well, if it's going to be a true detention pond, then, yes. Centers: Well, that's the way it reads on the map, too. Borup: Well, they are talking retention. Centers: Storm drain pond. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 22 of 34 Borup: Yes. The difference between detention and retention is -- Centers: Well, we have -- yes. We have to require that lining, so it's going to be retention. Borup: Not if they can drain it into the South Slough. Centers: Okay. I guess if he can't satisfy us than he can drain it into the South Slough prior to the City Council Meeting -- Borup: Then that would -- Centers: Right. Either/or. Either/or. Borup: Most of subdivisions have the retention pond and they are nice -- can be nice play areas if -- if they drain. Centers: Yes. Borup: But I don't know -- are any of the Bentonite ones draining properly? Maybe? Not that you can think of? Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, they are evaporating nicely. Borup: But do any of the Bentonite ones have a drain connected to them? Well, the one did, they just -- it was higher than what the pond was, so it didn't work. Freckleton: They've all had issues that I'm -- as far as I know. They have gone in, like I said, and rehabbed the one there at Coral Creek and Blackstone, so I need to go out and take some pictures of that and see. I think the -- I think the key secret is to make sure that your grading is done properly at the bottom of those and, you know, it's probably going to have to be done by hand and checked with a level and made sure. One of the other sticking points there is that in some of these designs they actually are designed -- even the ones that do have an outfall to a ditch, they are designed so that the outfall orifice sits higher than the bottom of the pond. Centers: Right. Freckleton: They are designed to -- Borup: To have a little bit of water, then. Freckleton: -- hold backwater. Yes. That's like the difference between the hundred- year storm and the 25-year event, it's -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 23 of 34 Borup: Well, that's what I was just thinking of. I think your sign is going to be a good idea, especially if -- when you have a major storm there is going to be water in there and, then, that would apply at those times, too. A couple times a year, however many times we have it. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Centers: Yes. I think it's a good -- basically, an in-fill project, sandwiched in there. I think if done properly it needs to be -- it's nice that it can be developed. Borup: That site could use some cleaning up. Centers: Yes. I'm not familiar -- it sounds like you are. Borup: I drive by it every day. Centers: I'm in favor of the project. I would move that we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, PP 03-007, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other lots -- I'm sorry. Are those numbers still correct, according to the new plat? Siddoway: I believe it has changed. Borup: The building lots stay the same, haven't they? Zaremba: I think the other lots may -- Cook: The building lots should stay the same. Siddoway: Still 36 building lots. Borup: So, it would be eight other lots, then? Zaremba: Well, you added an island and you took out one behind -- Lot 9 in Block 2 disappeared. Siddoway: I count six. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 24 of 34 Zaremba: So, does the count stay the same? Cook: Six common lots and the green belt. Zaremba: Okay. Let's continue as if I had not stopped, then. Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 36 building lots and seven other lots on 11.65 acres in an R-4 zone for Clearbrook Estates Subdivision by R.K. Development, LLC. West of North Meridian Road and south of West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their letter for hearing date of January 5th , received by the City Clerk June 2, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 4, under conditions of approval Preliminary Plat, Paragraph 2, the first sentence remains. The second sentence is -- this applies to Lot 1, Block 1. On Page 5, Paragraph 9, beginning after the comma it reads includes Lots 1, 6, 13, and 21. Delete the following word and the Number 22, comma, Block 1. Then, delete Block 9 -- I'm sorry. Delete Block -- Lot 9, Block 2. Leave in Lot 1, Block 3, and add Lot 1, Block 4. Paragraph 10 on Page 5 can be deleted as having been satisfied. On Page 6, Paragraph 21, is renumbered to Paragraph 22, and we add a new Paragraph 21 that says retention ponds shall either drain to the South Slough or have signage stating: Danger, no play area, or words to that effect. Centers: Well, we didn't want to say no play area. Zaremba: Play at your own risk? Centers: Right. Right. Drainage pond. Play at your own risk. Zaremba: Stating danger. Play at your own risk, or words to that effect. End of motion. Centers: Well, you have this Paragraph Number 22 there. Right here. Zaremba: I never saw that. Centers: It's -- it was a separate street. Borup: That was that second -- Centers: And this was eliminated. Then, you add the entrance from page -- Zaremba: All right. There is an issue of numbering. We are on Page 6. Paragraph 20 stays as it is. The new Paragraph 21 is about the retention pond signage or drainage. We now have a new Paragraph 22 from -- let me just read it. This development shall be subject to sanitary sewer latecomer fees to reimburse those responsible for bringing sanitary sewer service to this area. Latecomer fees shall be due and payable prior to City of Meridian endorsement on the Final Plat map. The current fee is $283.15 per dwelling unit. This fee is adjusted annually on October 1st at the rate of 4.0 percent per annum. Then, that means that the final paragraph becomes Number 23. Applicant shall submit ten copies. Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 25 of 34 Centers: Did we want to add reference to the entrance, Mr. Siddoway, to meet ACHD requirements in the curvatures, et cetera? Siddoway: They'll have to do it anyway, but I think it would be fine to mention. Centers: All right. Zaremba: So included. Centers: There we go. Siddoway: On the lot numbering -- and I hope this doesn't screw things up -- if the pathway lot says as part of Lot 1, then, there are only six open space lots, but in talking to the applicant, it seems to make sense to him to split it off from the street buffer as a separate common lot and give it a number. It currently has no separate number on the plat. Zaremba: It would become 22, then. Siddoway: It would likely become Number 22. Zaremba: Instead of 1-A and 1-B. I'd just incorporate the change without re-reading everything that I already changed. Siddoway: Yes. I think we can handle it. Zaremba: Okay. I would incorporate the -- the count on the lots actually remains seven by splitting Lot 1, Block 1, into the front piece that will remain Lot 1, and a wide south piece that will become Lot 22, Block 1. Whatever resulting changes that makes in the other notes. Now, I think that's the end of the motion. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5. Public Hearing: CUP 03-027 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for approval for dance studio use in an I-L zone at 269 East 5th Avenue for Sandy’s Dancework’s by Sandy’s Dancework’s, LLC – 269 East 5th Avenue: Borup: Our next item, Public Hearing CUP 03-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit for approval for a dance studio in an I-L zone at 269 East 5th Avenue for Sandy's Dancework’s by Sandy's Dancework’s, LLC. Excuse me. We will continue on. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 26 of 34 Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. You should have received a staff report on this, received June 12th by the Clerk's Office, written by Sonya and Brad Hawkins-Clark. The applicant wishes to do a dance studio in the Meridian Business Park on East 5th . Just to orient you a little bit, Franklin Road runs down to the south. The blue color here is the Meridian Fire Station. 5th Street comes in. The subject property is outlined in black and is in an existing industrial park, an older aerial photo. I also have the site photo, which is right here that -- this is the existing building. The building does already exist. It is a multi-tenant structure. There are three tenants currently in the building. There are nine vacant -- no. There are nine total three are filled six are currently vacant. The applicant desires to take on three of those in the front portion of the building closest to 5th Street. The improvements are in for landscaping and parking. The issue for the Conditional Use Permit is really the use. The dance studio is considered a private school and by the ordinance is a Conditional Use in the I-L zone. I think the only real issue, if you skip all the way back to the back of the recommendation, they have noted that staff has concerns about the compatibility of this use in an industrial zone and separate from the use, the only real issue is whether they have enough off-street parking. They detail the parking in finding A on Page 2. They do note that the site currently has 31 parking spaces and if they were to reserve at least three spaces for each of the vacant tenant spaces to make sure that they had parking, there would be a balance of 13 parking spaces available for this dance studio. I think we'd like the applicant to address whether they anticipate that that would be ample parking for their use. They do estimate that they will have about 10 to 12 students per class, so it may work. We need the applicant to address the -- their parking needs in relation to the supply that's currently there on the site and, with that, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Any questions from the Commission? Zaremba: Yes. Do we have any idea of roughly the hours that the other businesses in this building keep? This applicant has indicated the majority of their business is conducted after 4:30 and I would think there could be some shared use of parking. Siddoway: I do not have personal knowledge. Typically, you see those industrial office warehouse uses having more standard, you know, 8:00 to 5:00 hours of operation. It is possible some of them run later than that, certainly, but we may ask the applicant if they know who else is in there and what kind of hours they have. Centers: I have another question, Mr. Chairman. There is 31 parking places right here? Siddoway: Yes. Let me go to the Site Plan. Centers: Is that based on a square footage of this entire building? Siddoway: Yes. I believe they have more than would be required for straight industrial uses, but they do currently provide 31 spaces on the site. Here is the Site Plan. 5th Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 27 of 34 Street where the photo was taken from is over here on the left side. The photo was taken from about this point looking in at the building. The building has an L-shape parking in the front, as well as some parallel parking along the side and these are, you know, loading areas that can access by truck in the rear separate from the front parking Centers: So, all of these and these, maybe this one, and this one, total 31? Siddoway: That's correct. Centers: Okay. Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Anything else, Steve? Siddoway: That's all I have. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Waters: I'm Sandy Waters, I'm the owner of Sandy's Dancework’s, and right now, my business is in the Cherry Plaza Mall. My business is presently in the Cherry Plaza Mall and the way I conduct my business, I do have morning classes and I limit my class size, so I close my classes -- when I get ten students in the class in the morning I close it, because I have all three and four year olds in the morning. I do know that I won't need - - I do have -- I will have adequate parking in this new building. In the evening we start our classes approximately 4:30 in the afternoon and our minimum on our class size is between 12 and 14 students and they are -- normally they are older children, which sometimes will be dropped off and, then, picked up. I do have my students' parents sign a contract stating that the children will be dropped off and picked up on time and that's for safety reasons. I believe I do have -- this new space will have adequate parking. Borup: Okay. Do you have knowledge of the other businesses in the building? What -- I think it was one of the Commissioner's questions. Okay. You have someone here that can answer that. Waters: Yes. Borup: Okay, any questions from any of the other Commissioners? Zaremba: I would ask -- you, actually, addressed it a little bit in having your customers sign a contract about the drop off and pick up, but do you have any supervision of the children if they are dropped off early or they are waiting to -- what happens to children who are out of class, but not picked up yet? Waters: We do have -- we are very concerned about the children's safety and so if the child is not picked up on time, we will make them wait inside. We won't let them outside of the room, because, you know, there is -- there is all kinds of safety issues with that and, normally, especially in the morning time, the three and four year old classes, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 28 of 34 parents stay there the whole entire time, because they are concerned about their own child. We are very cautious and that's why we have our parents sign a contract, because we don't -- first of all, we don't want any legal issues and we do want them to be clear of the rules and regulations that we put forth in their contract. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: Sandy said someone had some information on the other businesses? Albrecht: My name is Bob Albrecht I'm one of the owners of the building, and just a correction on the information by staff. I don't know that it's pertinent. There are currently four tenants in the building. We have an electrical contractor -- see, I'm not used to these buildings. I don't have one of these fancy pointers, so we could do that. We currently have an electrical contractor in the building that takes this area here. I have a plumbing business. We have a shop in this area here. We have an insulation contractor that goes roughly in this area. We have a warehouse distribution area about in here. Sandy will take up the remaining two spaces. I see where the confusion is, because the building was originally submitted as a nine tenant building and as we fit up for our tenants, our initial tenants, we ended up with less. Borup: So, that fills the -- she would fill the building, then? Albrecht: Yes. Borup: So, it sounds like all the businesses are daytime businesses and there wouldn't be any -- Albrecht: They are. Could I get you, Mr. Siddoway, to flip back to the picture of the parking lot? This picture was taken during the day and that's typically how the parking lot looks during the day. Our largest employer -- our largest employer is Marv's Insulation and they have approximately eight employees. Centers Electric has anywhere from six to eight people, depending on the time of the year. I, generally, have two people that come to the shop. That leaves us open for parking. We have had at times parking from the people to the north that sometimes have inventory overstock in their parking lot, but we have plenty of room for that. Let's see. I tried to make some notes. Borup: So, it looks like after 5:00 or 5:30 or so -- Albrecht: Yes. Our hours of operation where we are -- the three of us are construction oriented, typically are in and out of there between 7:00 to 7:30 in the morning and roll in when we are done. On a good day that's 4:30 and, you know, my guys came in at 6:00 tonight and the insulators got in at 3:30 and just -- it just varies. Borup: So, I mean -- what I was getting at, it sounds like in the evening after that time that they have got the whole parking lot to themselves. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 29 of 34 Albrecht: Yes. I was -- I had occasion, the way the day ended up, to sit on the tailgate of my truck and have lunch at about 3:30. Another thing, we all access down the backside of the building. Marv's guys park out front and, then, walk around, but all of Eric's people, my people, and the remainder of Marv's typically access down the back. That's where our overhead doors are we are pulling the shop trucks in and different things like that. Let's see. I think that's all I have. Borup: Any other questions? Zaremba: Well, that last -- that was an answer to the question I was going to ask. I assume there were the big bay doors and most of your tenants are using the backside of the building -- Albrecht: That's correct. I don't have a front door. Zaremba: -- for coming and going. Albrecht: I wasn't willing to pay that much rent, so -- Zaremba: Let me ask -- Albrecht: They gave me a bad place. Zaremba: -- a couple of technical questions. Usually -- you're listed as owner of -- one of the owners of record on this property. Usually, we need have the owner's permission for an application like this. I assume since you're here testifying they have your permission. Albrecht: I thought we signed one of those. Zaremba: You probably did. I don't see it in the packet. I just wanted to clarify. Your word -- Albrecht: Yes. It's okay with us. Zaremba: Your word is good enough for me. Albrecht: For the record. Zaremba: Then, one other question. Let's see. Roger Brown and Katherine Brown. They appear not to be on your property, but probably next door. 205 East 5th Avenue. Albrecht: I'm prepared to address that. Zaremba: They have sent us a letter just generally in opposition to it and they state a similar problem the staff was bringing up for us to be concerned about and that is there Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 30 of 34 is a lot of trucks that come and go and is this a safe place for children to be. Do you know them? Albrecht: Pardon? Zaremba: Do you know the Brown’s? Albrecht: I have found a technical device here. I know them, yes. I'm familiar with them, if I could address staff's concerns, as well as Mr. and Mrs. Brown? There are a couple of issues in Mr. Brown's letter that I would take issue with. The first being that the business park was sold and presented to the buyers as a light manufacturing and, therefore, he draws the conclusion that any other use to should be prohibited. The acceptable uses for the zoning that the property is located in is not defined by the City of Meridian to exclude the use we are applying for. Further, it seems as though the dance studio has been an acceptable use in similarly zoned properties within a mile to the east and a mile to the northeast of us. It tells me that it has been a little bit of a -- it has not been a problem, but an acceptable -- an acceptable use. The second issue in Mr. Brown's letter was the parking on the street. The parking of the vehicles on East 5th Avenue is predominately done by the businesses on the corner of Bower and East 5th , which would be the property that would be right here next to us. Quite often their parking lot is utilized for inventory storage and so they park on the street. I have been on East 5th for seven years with my business and I have never had a problem with it. Yes, when they are -- parking on the street is not prohibited in that area. It does tighten up the street -- up the street a little bit. I don't see that as a bad thing. I have a tendency when the street's got cars on it to drive a little slower, in case somebody comes out in front of it -- in front of me. We have no problem with -- with parking, as I have already discussed, particularly at the times of operation that -- that Sandy's Dancework’s as presented. With regards to traffic, if traffic is the determining factor for a dance studio, it would appear that possibly the only acceptable location for such a business would be a residential subdivision or out in the country away from populated areas. East 5th is eclipsed by the traffic in retail centers or even on Meridian Main Street, for that matter, many of the other business areas of the community. It's the nature of the Treasure Valley. We have a lot of traffic and we have a lot of people. As I mentioned earlier, I have been on that street for seven years. I don't notice the traffic being as bad when I drive down East 5th as it is when I go most anywhere else. I've never had a -- never -- very seldom have I had to wait to make a left-hand turn onto East 5th or into the parking lot of this property or the property where I was located before. It's just not there. Yes, we have Handy Trucking. Yes, we have my company. We have the other companies in there. One thing about the layout of this subdivision -- could I see that real quick is the access -- We have access off of Main Street via Bower on East 5th into this area. We have access for everything over in this part of the subdivision by way of Baltic and King Street off of Franklin, and, then, the northern end of the -- excuse me -- the southern end and the entrance around there off of Franklin. I find -- I don't sit and study traffic, it really doesn't excite me, but I find when I pass people that I know that are in there, they are always coming from the same direction and it flows pretty good. I think it was a well laid out subdivision. I think that safety and the issues there, I think the facts pretty well speak for themselves. With that, I would Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 31 of 34 ask that in considering the application that you would consider those facts with regards to safety, accessibility, and the impact to our neighbors. The impact on our neighbors would be negligible based on Sandy's presented hours of operation. As far as accessibility, we have plenty of unused off-street parking adjacent to the property at all hours of the day. Third, with regards to safety, the amount of traffic on East 5th , as I have alluded to earlier in my presentation, compared to the retail and business locations throughout the city, is extremely light when that comparison is made. Further, the private and limited access of the parking lot provides, in my mind, superior security, and safety to the students of Sandy's Dancework’s, in contrast -- in contrast to more publicly accessible areas. That's all I have. Thank you. Borup: Anything else from any Commissioners? Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this? You may as well. You're the last one. McKinniss: My name is Mike McKinniss I'm with J.L. Boyd Company. We are the leasing agent for Mr. Albrecht. I just, very quickly, wanted to bring into the record that there is precedent for this, with the Conditional Use Permit granted to Meridian Academy of Gymnastics in August to 2000 at 1530 East Commercial Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. That's it. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing be closed. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing, all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman, I look at this and I looked at this before I got here tonight, as compared to the church that wanted to go into the industrial zone. I look at it very similar to that. If a church wants to be in an industrial zone, the way I looked at it that night, they should be allowed to, if their congregation wants to go there. I feel the same way about this. If they want to least their space to a dance studio and you don't have any people here objecting to it, I think that's fine. This Mr. Brown that wrote the letter, he would have referred to the fact that I'm going to be out of town the night of your hearing, can't be there, then, I would consider his letter, but I would say all that and, then, say this, that I know that leases are drawn up and a number of parking spaces are allowed per square footage per tenant and I don't think -- I think it's a management issue and if the management of that building wants to lease the space to a tenant that will be taking up a good share of the parking, that should be their decision. They might lose tenants in the future because of that, but that's their problem. That's the way I look at it. Rohm: So, it's a non-issue. The parking is a non-issue. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 32 of 34 Centers: It's a management decision, as far as I'm concerned. There is plenty of parking there, but there may not be in the future and, then, the management has to address that with the other tenants that are there. Zaremba: I didn't ask this question specifically, but I would make the assumption that the applicant is experiencing a growing business and is making this move from her present location to move into a larger space and I certainly am in favor of encouraging businesses to grow. The applicant wants to be there and the owner of the building operates his own business out of that building and certainly knows whether it's going to function well. I'm satisfied. Borup: I felt the same as Commissioner Centers. I had no problem with the zoning. My only concern was the parking. Knowing that this fills up the space did make a difference, in that there aren't going to be future -- other than tenants changing, there won't be future spaces filled. Then, the hours of operation makes a big difference, too, with most of it in the evening hours. Centers: Yes. I think the owner has got 12 to 14 parking spaces out front there and -- which would fill the parking lot. Then, as I said, he's going to have to address that with his remaining tenants. Borup: If the daytime business picks up. Centers: Right. Having said that, I would make a motion that we approve Item CUP -- Item 5 on the agenda, CUP 03-027, request for a Conditional Use Permit for approval for dance studio use in an I-L zone at 269 East 5th Avenue for Sandy's Dancework’s by Sandy's Dancework’s, LLC, at 269 East 5th Avenue. Including all staff comments from their memo dated June -- excuse me. Hearing date dated June 19th and we received it June 12th . Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second, all in favor? Mathes: Abstain. Borup: Three ayes and one abstain. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED Borup: That concludes. Thank you. Item 6. Public Hearing: Lot Split Ordinance: Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 33 of 34 Zaremba: On Item 6 we have received a request to have that item withdrawn. If that requires a motion to accept, I so move. Borup: Any comments from the staff? Just not time? Siddoway: Just not time yet. They are still going to be working on some more revisions to that ordinance, discussing it with Council members and deciding which direction it needs to go in before we are ready for this body to act on it. Borup: Okay. Well, then, it's not going to be a continuance, we will just -- Zaremba: I move that we accept the withdrawal of this item. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second, all in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: I think last month you mentioned working on more than one building in commercial zones. Was that, essentially, what that was -- how is that coming? Siddoway: Anna Powell is going through the ordinance and doing that and several other clean-up items that can be simply made with just an easy text change, other than an entire rewrite of an ordinance. I know she was working on that last week. Borup: So, that would be fairly soon, then? Siddoway: Yes. I do not know the specific status of it, but I would anticipate it being ready pretty soon. Yes. Borup: Because that is something we sure see a lot of. Siddoway: Yes. Borup: And maybe it would be unnecessary in the future. Siddoway: That's the way it's headed, yes. Borup: I guess that's it, anything else, then, Commissioners? Centers: I would move that we adjourn our meeting. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to adjourn, all in favor? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting June 19, 2003 Page 34 of 34 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: We adjourn at 8:40. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: SHARON SMITH, DEPUTY CITY CLERK