The URL can be used to link to this page

2003 11-06Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 6, 2003 The Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. on Thursday, November 6, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Michael Rohm, and David Zaremba. Members Absent: Jerry Centers and Leslie Mathes. Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Bruce Freckleton, Tara Green, Anna Powell, Craig Hood, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Brad Hawkins-Clark and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-Call Attendance: X David Zaremba O Jerry Centers O Leslie Mathes X Michael Rohm X Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for Thursday, November 6th , and start with roll call of the Commissioners. Borup: Before we start our regular meeting, a little bit of information that I need to give and I may have a hard time. I hope you will bear with me but Tuesday night one of our Commissioners, Commissioner Centers, passed away in his sleep and he has been a real strong and valued member of this Commission. His comments were always pertinent and well thought out. Oftentimes I think he's kind of the glue that kept this Commission together, kept things rolling along and we are going to miss him greatly. For those that may be interested, his funeral will be next Monday at 1:00. You know, I think also maybe it would be appropriate at this time if we could have a moment of silence to remember, show our respects for him and his family. I'd like to go ahead and do that right now if we could. Thank you. Item 4. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2003: AZ 03-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. – 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Item 5. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2003: PP 03-027 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 59 building lots and 8 other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. – 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Item 6. Continued Public Hearing from October 2, 2003: CUP 03-043 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 2 of 87 mix of single-family detached residential lot sizes and amenities for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc. – 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road: Borup: Okay. Our first item on the agenda is Soda Springs Subdivision project, the first three items, items four, five and six. They all three are continued public hearings from our October 2nd meeting. AZ 03-023, PP 03-027, and CUP 03-043. I would like to, again, continue on these three public hearings at this time and do we have any additional staff report? Kirkpatrick: There is not an additional staff report, but I will go ahead and address some of the changes that the applicant's made. Let's see. Let me put up the revised plat. Okay. If you look at the northeast corner of the subdivision, the applicant has dropped one of the lots from the subdivision and put that lot into the open space. Previously, the open space of the subdivision, I think, was a little over six percent and they now exceed ten percent, so they can officially count this as an amenity towards their two required amenities for the planned development, and I will go back. The applicant submitted some photos of a tot lot in another subdivision that they are modeling their open space after, so these are some of the amenities that the applicant has proposed, including in that that tot lot, which will be a part of that open space. Their two amenities will be the tot lot and, then, the 10 percent open space and I think -- we have the applicant here, but I think those are the only changes that have been made since the last hearing. If you have any questions of staff. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I have -- I, actually, don't have a question, only a comment. I missed the meeting on October 2nd when this was first heard. I left a meeting that I was at in Idaho Falls to come home early to get here to be at the meeting, ended up spending the day and the evening with my wife in the hospital, so I'm sorry I wasn't here, but I have read all of the minutes of that meeting and I think I'm up to speed on what the issues were. Borup: Okay. Thank you, and I maybe should mention one other thing before we continue. This is just an agenda item. Items Number 9 and also Number 11 -- I don't know if we have anyone here for that -- both of those have been requested by the applicant to be continued. Item Number 9 is Blue Marlin and Number 11 was Farmers and Merchant's Bank. I guess at this point we don't have a date that they will be continued to. Do we have anyone here even for those? Okay. Are you interested in a date that it will be continued to? Which one were you here on? The Farmers and Merchants or -- for Blue Marlin? Okay. They requested for January. Zaremba: Move to early next year. I would suggest January 15th I think is a Thursday. Borup: Does staff have any comment on time on that? That's pretty far out, so I -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 3 of 87 Powell: The applicant is -- they wrote a letter and they know it's far out there. It was a similar discussion -- we had similar discussions with them as we did on the Kissler annexations that came before you. They are kind of unwilling to accept the residential component or the idea that there should be residential there, so they are -- I think they just want to go on hold for a while to see what they want to do. We have -- we understand they want to go out that far. I'm not -- I don't have any feelings one-way or the other as to the length of time. If your Commission is willing to keep it on your agenda, I don't think staff has concerns, but -- Borup: I think we are, but I don't think we want to keep continuing it every two months. Well, I guess we can make that decision in January. If they are not ready to proceed, we could -- Zaremba: Continue it once to January 15th and then -- Borup: Let them submit if that's -- Zaremba: Yes. Borup: I mean they requested January, so they feel that's enough time, apparently. Okay. Zaremba: Can somebody confirm that the 15th is a Thursday? I don't have a '04 calendar in front of me. I'm just guessing. We have a different public hearing open. Can we make a motion on that one? Borup: I don't know if we need to -- Zaremba: We will make a motion when we get there, but the interested party can know that it will probably be January 15th . Borup: That's what I was to going suggest. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Yes. That is that -- well, that is the third Thursday. Zaremba: The first Thursday is the 1st . Borup: The 1st . Yes. Okay so, John, that will probably be the -- we are looking at the 15th . We will handle that when we get to that item. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Okay. Sorry for the interruption. Did you have some other information, Wendy? I distracted everybody here for a little bit. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 4 of 87 Kirkpatrick: No, I don't have anything else to add. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their application -- or their presentation? Suggs: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jane Suggs, 200 Louisa Street in Boise, representing JLJ Enterprises and the Soda Springs Subdivision. This is tougher tonight. I'm so glad you read the minutes, Commissioner, and I'm not going to recount all of that. Actually, what I wanted to do was just maybe recap some of the issues that came up during our discussions. One of those was the quality of the homes that will be built in the subdivision and I think we clearly showed through the photographs from both Todd Campbell Homes and Roth Homes that the quality is there. We showed you site plans and some elevations of those and I don't know we still have those on the PowerPoint. There we go. Some of the homes, and obviously, you can see that we are talking about some of the quality homes and, again, we did discuss last time that the -- some of the neighbors of ours visited the Heritage Commons Subdivision to look at some of the homes that were there, because Roth has been building in that subdivision. We also had mentioned some of the Todd Campbell projects, Palisades and Fenwick, but we, basically, want to show the homes that were actually to be built there. One of the concerns last time we spoke was about the density of the project. We are at just over five units to an acre. We have 11 acres, and now we are down 57 lots, because we have lost a lot. We did talk about the ways that we had worked with the neighbors. You know, we had a neighborhood meeting and we want to continue to do that. We have agreed to cedar fencing around the perimeter. There is a chain link fence now. We did agree that if there is a one-story house adjacent to us at Sherbrooke Hollows, we would build a one-story home that would include a bonus -- could include a bonus room. However, the bonus room would not have a window facing the rear, so that there would not be an opportunity for that room to be looking over someone else's backyard. In addition to that, there was some contact and a proposal made to the homeowners association of the Sherbrooke Hollows board of directors and just to let you know, there was some concern that had not been a formal proposal. They did meet just this past Monday. We were -- I'll just hand these to you. Where the developer of the project did make a proposal to the homeowners association board to actually become part of the Sherbrooke Hollows homeowners association. Again, we also talked a lot about the home sizes. One of the things, if we become part of the homeowners association for Sherbrooke Hollows, one of the stipulations is that we would have home sizes -- now, we made our first application to the city and that application mentioned that we wanted to meet the minimum home sizes that is your minimum in your code. However, after meeting with the neighbors, we realized that they are really interested in looking at something a little larger and our builders probably will build something a little larger than those minimums, too, which go down as low as -- I think 1,000 for some, but about 1,100 square feet. We are proposing, of course, that single level homes have a minimum of 1,300 square feet. Two level homes that are located in the center of the project and along Victory Road would have 1,600 square feet. All the homes that are on the west and north side of the project that are along the perimeter that touch Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 5 of 87 Sherbrooke Hollows, the ones that are the 6,500 square foot lots -- let me just clarify that. You might put the plat back up. Thank you. These homes through here would all meet the minimum home sizes that are in the Sherbrooke Hollows neighborhood and that's 1,500 square feet for single level and 1,750 for two level homes. Of course, we also talked about the amenities and I think as we went through our discussion, that's one of the places where we kind of got hung up and got stuck and that's why we are back here. We had proposed two amenities, one was a pathway that runs along this area in the park, it runs along the canal, and it's part of a regional pathway system that's included in your Comprehensive Plan, and we are also including a tot lot in this area. I want to show you the -- here is some up close drawings of those. In this color rendering now of the revised plan it does show the tot lot in this area right here in the park and what's so nice now -- we did lose a lot and now we do have, in addition to the pathway and the tot lot, over ten percent open space and we believe those are significant amenities and those are the things that do qualify us for a PUD. I know one of the issues that we will talk about -- probably the neighbors will talk about is I do recall Commissioner Centers saying don't just lose one lot, I'm not going to be impressed. I do want to explain that we did lose one lot, a 6,500 square foot lot, one of our larger lots, and it was located right here. We were able to take that lot out and did meet -- we were just under that ten percent, so we now are about 11 percent open space and one of the nice things about that is you will notice in here this is the open space for Sherbrooke Hollows. This is the edge of their property line right here. This would look really nice, because this, actually, combines -- could combine with their open space and I believe that's what the intent of some of these open spaces and connectivity are all about is to show that connectivity between the open spaces. The developer -- the engineer is here, he's been out at the site. There was some concern that there was an area here that was low and there is ditch running through here. That ditch will be piped and that area will be improved, so that it can serve as a park, so it won't be low and wet. That was a concern from some of the neighbors out there. On the drawing you also see -- I went out to a subdivision, a recently constructed subdivision in Eagle and found a tot lot that's very similar to what we are showing and it's shown on that little landscape plan. I know that you have to make particular findings to approve this. As I read in your code, for the Preliminary Plat, that the plat is in conformance with the comprehensive development plan and it certainly is. Again, this area is medium density residential. There is a neighbor center in the Comprehensive Plan across the street. There was some comments made at the last meeting that possibly the density we are talking about should be across the street next to the neighborhood center, but I would maintain that that concept of neighborhood centers means that there should be some commercial -- some neighborhood commercial and that density across the street from that center is very appropriate. I think it -- I don't know how to convince you of that, other than I know that in that comprehensive planning, those streets are not supposed to be barriers or borders to those neighborhood centers, those neighborhood centers should, actually, serve the whole surrounding area, not just the people that are on one side of the street. You also have to make a finding that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development and we talked about that last time. There are urban services available and Bruce was nice enough to clarify the sewer issue. There is sewer right there next to our project that we can use. He's going to verify that with some Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 6 of 87 calculations, but he doesn't see any problem with that. This project does continue the capital improvement program of constructing that pathway that is in the Comprehensive Plan. I don't see that there are any public responsibilities to this project, other than those general responsibilities of schools and public safety. We have met, again, with the Fire Department and they have approved this secondary entrance and this will, actually, be a permanent entrance. Before we had talked about putting in a temporary secondary entrance, but working with the Fire Department, we are putting in a 20 foot grass creet pathway that will have a little gravel walking path in the middle of it and that will be a secondary access for pedestrians, but it will also be a permanent secondary access for emergency vehicles. Now, as we talked last time, this area right here abuts this property line, and anytime that property develops there will certainly be secondary access through that area, too. We are building the street here and, then, the people who eventually develop this can develop houses right off of that. We do expect -- the property owners, I'm sure, are here tonight and they will probably talk about them not developing, but we want to make sure that in the -- if sometime in the future, if it does, that there is an opportunity to develop that property. It's oddly shaped and it's kind of a small piece, so we wanted to provide that opportunity. We were surprised to see there weren't any stub streets coming out of Sherbrooke Hollows, so, you know, that's one of the things I know you all are looking at more closely now, too. The other finding is that health, safety, and environmental problems that have been brought to your attention could be handled and I don't know of any of those particular health, safety, or environmental issues that we haven't addressed or that could not be overcome, so I believe your findings are there. I do ask that you approve our plan as we have submitted, the revised plan, with the home sizes that we have included in our discussions with you and recalling the clarification on the sewer and I will stand for questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: I don't think so. Borup: I think you have addressed what we talked about. Okay. Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this application? Come forward. Were you doing some stuff as part of your presentation? Jewett: Yes. Borup: You need to be a little faster. Jewett: Jim Jewett, 408 South Eagle Road, Suite 103, in Eagle. I apologize I wasn't here at the last meeting, I was out of town as well, and so I've to research the minutes try to answer some of the questions. Jane touched on most of them, but I will just touch on a few. One is my offer -- and the topic of the e-mail that Jane provided you, my offer to the homeowners association and maybe the definition of why I'm going this way or offered to go this way. Part of my belief in community planning is bringing communities together and bringing homeowners together in one community just seems to make Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 7 of 87 more sense, both financially and for the purposes of planning homes and common areas and use of those common areas and the mowing of those common areas. That's one general reason. Secondly, I saw a great benefit in this tot lot area to incorporate their common area and pipe the ditch they have open in their common area and improve it to be coherent with what we want to do so all the residents within both subdivisions could utilize this tot area. In trying to give some of the homeowners in Sherbrooke Hollows some belief that this is not going to, in any way, affect their subdivision, to give them architectural control and guidelines, because we are joining their CC and R's and their architectural committee, and then, lastly, is the irrigation system, which is operated by Nampa-Meridian out there. They want us to connect to that system, as long as we make some improvements. We will be making some improvements to their irrigation system, albeit, it's owned by Nampa-Meridian. Nampa- Meridian would want us to make those improvements and we are agreeable to do that. I think it's a win for both this development and Sherbrooke Hollows to have this homeowners association and that's why I tendered the offer and that's why I stand by the offer. One other issue that came up, as I read the minutes from the last meeting, was a comparison of our plat in density versus a comparison to what I think is Sageland, which is just down the street, and our -- I believe that our plat is of superior design, but we didn't have some of the hindrances that Sageland had in the fact that it had frontage on two streets, it was triangle, and it had a canal in the back, so albeit it might have been eight acres to start, it probably only has six acres of usable ground, so to take a comparison of 39 lots in eight acres versus our 57 in 11 is not a true comparison. Six acres into 39 versus 11 into 57 would probably be a truer comparison and if you look at the actual lot sizes in Sageland versus ours, we have some bigger lots and we have some smaller ones. I didn't take a look at the average, but I don't think we should be penalized because of what I feel is a superior design. When we had a neighborhood meeting, some of the homeowners discussed R-4 versus R-8 and as I told them there and I'll state it here, we were given direction both by Comp Plan and by staff that this is appropriate, this is something the city wants to see, especially in the area of this neighborhood center that's proposed across the street or proposed through the Comp Plan. We were more than happy to do R-4, but with the R-8 we are able to offer stuff like tree-lined streets, separated sidewalks, the tot lot, a little bit different design in the homes, a little bit of diversity. I mean 11 acres, I think we have offered some pretty good diversity here than just an 11 acre in-fill. I think we are being directed this way by a lot of factors and I think this is an appropriate use in this area. The last thing homeowners discussed quite a bit in the neighborhood meeting was home values and affecting their home values and my point to them is if I put 44 or 42, whatever I could fit on there, R-8 lots, and put 44 more homes just like in Sherbrooke Hollows, that will affect their value, because it just puts more of the same thing out there. To offer a diversity and a range of housing that will go from their level down a little bit more, maybe a little bit higher, that it just brings in a different variety of people that might move up and move down within Sherbrooke as far as buying and selling homes through the years. That I categorically would say this project will not drop any value. If anything, it would increase the values of -- or increase the desirability of the homes in Sherbrooke, because of the diversity that we are creating and albeit that may not chance the value Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 8 of 87 up or down, it will make the area more desirable, which just, you know, is a good thing. As a developer I'll stand for any questions if anybody has any specific of me. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Rohm: No. You did a good job. Thank you. Borup: Oh, I do have one question. I'm sorry. At the beginning you made mention of your letter and offer to the homeowners association. Have you heard back from them at all? Jewett: I talked with the property manager. Their biggest issue was being able to show good, architectural elevations on these narrow lots. I provided them, the board that's here tonight, with copies of what our proposed elevations is what you saw on the screen here. I think that we have answered that and I think they are waiting to see the outcome of this before they move forward. Borup: Okay. Jewett: I do know they have their regular annual meeting I believe at the end of November, so my hope is that they take this to the full neighborhood at that point in time. Borup: Otherwise, it looks like you would -- I mean if it was approved, you proceed with your own homeowner's association and, then, work with Nampa-Meridian however they prefer to do their irrigation. Jewett: It's my hope that -- Borup: Either that or bag the whole project. Jewett: I don't think I want to go that route. Yeah, we are prepared to form a homeowners association. That's not an issue. I think there is a loss on both sides if that doesn't happen, but we are prepared to move forward. We do it every day, so -- Borup: All right. Thank you. Jewett: Thank you. Borup: Okay. We had someone that was ready to come on up, so come on up, sir. Hansen: My name is Marvin Hansen. My property is 2460 East Victory Road, which is just east of the subdivision here, and some of my concerns are the same as last time. They were talking about fences. They don't say that they are going to put a fence on my side of the property or on the -- that side of the subdivision. Everybody's talking about where the kids are going to play. If they don't do that, they are going to be on my Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 9 of 87 property all the time and they are going to tile their ditch. I don't plan on tiling my ditch. It's not a deep ditch, but a kid could drown in it. I think that we do need to have a fence, a security privacy fence from the canal clear up to Victory Road. That is one of my main concerns, and the other concern I have is they talked about the irrigation with Nampa-Meridian. I have asked Nampa-Meridian what they are going to do. They have not gotten back to me. I do get my irrigation water from the Ridenbaugh Canal. It leaves the canal, goes underground, of course, and comes up and it's just on their side of the fence now. I don't know what that -- what they are going to do with the water there, but I do ask that -- I need to have access to that water. I have had a lot of trees planted out, I water them at least once a week when the water in the canal and I do have to have access to that water. I do need to know what they are going to do and I think that's mostly all my concerns right now. Borup: I had a couple questions. Anyone for Mr. Hansen? Zaremba: Ask yours and I'll I see if mine are -- Borup: A few things. The water -- you say your access point is on their property? Hansen: Yes, it is. Borup: Did you put that in yourself or -- Hansen: No. Nampa-Meridian put that in. That was there when we bought the property. It comes out of that -- Borup: Is that intended to water both properties? Hansen: Yes, it is. It waters three -- there is actually parcels of property there that it waters, mine, and, then, two over on their property. There are three head gates right there. Borup: Okay. Well, water in use is still -- and I don't know how Nampa-Meridian handles that when it's on another property, but you still need to have your water delivered to you. Hansen: Yes. Borup: Another question I had was on the fence. You were talking about having a fence along the whole eastern boundary of this. Hansen: Yes. Borup: Now, would you allow them to put a fence on your property? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 10 of 87 Hansen: Yes, I would. There is a fence there now, but it's an old farm fence, the one like -- the wires that are six inches apart, not sturdy, if a kid climbs on it, they would probably tear it down in no time at all and I would like it to actually be a privacy fence. My bedrooms are on -- would be the west end of my house and if there is traffic on that road at night, they are going to be -- the lights are going to be shining in my bedroom window. Borup: Okay. That was all I had. Mr. Zaremba? Zaremba: You hit my subjects. Borup: That was the fence? Is that what you were wondering? Okay. Hansen: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? N. Hansen: I'm Nancy Hansen and I also live at 2460 East Victory Road and I just had a few other points to make. I thought one of the reasons that this item on the agenda was postponed for a month or carried over for a month was that the developers would meet with the homeowners and they did not meet with us, they did not contact -- they did not call, they did not write. Perhaps they met with the Sherbrooke homeowners association, but they did not meet with my husband or I or make any contact and so like offering the fence around the perimeter is what she said, but we didn't -- we don't know still if it involves us or not. At the last meeting also they mentioned that they did not feel like they should do any landscaping between our property and that subdivision, because of our property in future development, possibly and they also noticed that we had planted trees. There is a line of trees there now and that's true, we planted those trees, we water them, and we take care of them, and I feel that they should have to do something to enhance the property if they build this subdivision next to us. I still would like to have somebody mention about -- we would like the developer to present specific designs and plans to this committee before the agreement is given and that any condition or agreement negotiated through these meetings be written on the plat, so that they are adhered to in the future. That was a problem with a past development. And -- Borup: You understand there are some things that are appropriate to be written on the plat and other things that it's not appropriate. N. Hansen: Well, probably so, and this may not affect our -- I mean if you're talking about the plats next to the homeowners association next to Sherbrooke Hollow -- Borup: No. I'm talking about the whole project is considered a plat. N. Hansen: Okay. So, that if they say -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 11 of 87 Borup: There are some things with the county engineers did not want to see on the plat. N. Hansen: But if they agree to having single story houses in certain plats, that should be written on the plat -- Borup: Yes. N. Hansen: -- so that in the future any developers -- Borup: Yes. That type of thing. N. Hansen: So, that you don't have two story houses built where they shouldn't be, and we would like to insure that lights along the proposed road bordering our property be hooded. My husband already talked about the developers being responsible for the cost incurred to change the irrigation source, if that has to happen. Finally, I just want to say we did not have plans to develop our property, we still don't have plans to develop our property, and they continue to speak about future development and that may happen, you know, 20, 30 years down the future, but we plan on living there for quite awhile still. Borup: Thank you. That is part of this Commission's responsibility is planning and I can't tell you how many times I have heard that exact thing that you said and two years later they are in front of us. N. Hansen: Well, you know, what happens -- Borup: With no plan. N. Hansen: -- is other people develop around you and it becomes a different neighborhood than you planned on -- Borup: Exactly. N. Hansen: -- living in. Borup: That's why it's important for us to make sure that we are preparing for the future. N. Hansen: We are at your mercy and -- to keep our lifestyle halfway what it is, we are at your mercy. Borup: Thank you. Do we have -- you, sir. Semaha: Good evening. My name is Lucien Semaha. I live on 3036 South Grimes Creek Avenue in Sherbrooke Hollows, and before I start, I also found out today about Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 12 of 87 Mr. Centers and I'd like to say just a simple word if I may, that for those of us who work in the industry have lost a true friend, so I just want to leave it there. Borup: Thank you. Semaha: And, personally, I was looking forward to conversing with Jerry tonight and I feel I was robbed from that opportunity, so that's where I am at emotionally at least at this point. I got a copy of the minutes, as you all have it, and Mr. Centers -- you know, and I will quote a couple quotes that, you know, I really read them over and over and over again. Then, when we look at this -- and I'll make my comments in a few minutes - - it says what bothers me, too, is the fact that the developer has just given us the bare minimum of the maximum. I will make further comments in just a few minutes about that, and also he continues by saying the project down the road that has 39 lots -- and he's referring to the opposite -- the one on Locust Grove -- they need to give -- to give up some more of their lots and give back some open space. If they come back with one lot, which they did, that's not going to impress me. Okay. In the beginning when the -- when we met with the developer, during our neighborhood meeting, the lots that were abutting Sherbrooke Hollows all the way down, based on the first plat that was presented to us, there were 15 of these bigger lots around Sherbrooke. Now I believe we have 11, because the drainage pond area you can't consider it as a lot, and down where Victory is we have eleven, now we have 13. Okay. Again, they took a couple -- one lot from the obvious area that you see to bring it to the common area and, then, they added another lot down there, you know, on Victory, where the easement was for the Fire Department and I spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out, really, you know, what happened. These lots that you see in front you on Victory they have been down sized. They have been down sized to accommodate the extra lot and the easement of 1,800 square feet versus over 4,000 square feet that was there first and so they narrowed them further in order to accommodate -- Borup: How much did they narrow them? Semaha: Well, I did my calculations yesterday at midnight, so I truly don't remember but it came -- Borup: Well, you're making a pretty strong statement there. I'd like some clarification on that. Semaha: Well, I took -- Borup: Well, let me just cut to the chase. Our plat shows they are both still 45 feet. The old ones are 45 the new one is 45. Semaha: Okay. Well, for some reason, you know, I noticed that, you know, they were narrowed a little bit in order accommodate, you know, the -- Borup: Well -- but the numbers don't say that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 13 of 87 Semaha: Okay. Well, the other -- the other issue that we have is that those lots on Victory, they are 90 feet deep. Most of the lots in the whole subdivision are a hundred or more feet deep and if you put a 1,300 square foot home on the 90-foot deep lot, the concern is if they are designed to accommodate families and a backyard, they truly are not going to have a backyard. That's another issue, and -- Borup: Well – okay, and we are going to need to restrict time a little bit, but -- Semaha: Sure. Sure. Borup: From the testimony last time I don't believe they said those were necessarily for families, they said they would be similar to some other projects and it would be young professionals or empty nesters in a lot of those homes. Semaha: So, why are we putting the tot lot? Borup: You're talking about the homes -- the lots that were smaller and the families are going to want the bigger lots. Semaha: I agree. In all due respect, the majority, if not most of the development, have smaller lots. I mean it's obvious that that's the case, and if we -- if the argument was we need more open space for the children and we are not inviting children to come and live there, what are we doing? The other issue that Sherbrooke Hollow has also is that drainage lot we found out that it abuts to two properties. Not one, two, and the concern is that if it floods -- because we can't control Mother Nature. If the water is going to go this way, it's going to -- if it's directed to go this way, it's going to go this way, then, what guarantee do these neighbors have that their backyards are not going to flood. So -- Borup: Are their backyards lower than this property? Semaha: We don't know. Borup: I mean it's there now. Is it lower than what is there now? Semaha: I'm sorry? Borup: Is their lot lower than the existing ground? Semaha: I really cannot answer that question. I really don't know. Our concern is that the water is flowing from this whole subdivision into that lot, when it rains or whatever the case might be, and there are two neighbors -- two backyards from Sherbrooke Hollows that will be affected. Maybe moving that lot towards Victory, you know, and having it drain on that area versus, you know, it draining, you know, towards Sherbrooke, maybe would be more appropriate and that's the question we are asking you tonight and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 14 of 87 Borup: Well -- and that's why I asked that question. You're assuming that the water is going to flow uphill it sounded like, but -- Semaha: I'm not assuming anything. It's a simple, logical concern, that it's a drain lot where water is going to accumulate -- Borup: And every subdivision in the city has one. Semaha: Right. We do have one -- we do have one also in Sherbrooke Hollows, but it's deep enough that it's not going to, hopefully, go into the neighbors. I mean it's very deep. Borup: And do those flood a lot? Semaha: I'm sorry? Borup: Do those flood a lot, the ones in Sherbrooke, do they -- Semaha: They do. A lot of water does accumulate, but the houses are high and the lot is very low. I mean if that's -- if that's the intent, then, you know, we just -- Borup: Well, it doesn't sound like they are flooding, then. The ones in Sherbrooke are not flooding and affecting the neighbors. Semaha: They are not flooding, because they are designed in such a way where the houses are much higher than the flood lot. It's already -- you know, the ground was raised where the flood lot is low and the houses are high. Borup: They are designed that way, because they have to be designed that way. That's a requirement. Semaha: But the thing is, you have backyards that are already existing, where the developer has no control over that level, which we don't know, and that's a concern. And -- I mean these are, you know, the things that the neighborhood and the board has a concern with at this point and I will leave it right there. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Did you have something else from -- Semaha: No. I will cut it short -- I will cut it short as you requested. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? Zaremba: Is there any interest in the expanding your homeowners association to include -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 15 of 87 Semaha: I would leave -- I would leave the comment to the board members, because they met and they did some research about many things and they will come with a logical response and actual and factual response about that. I cannot answer that question at this time. Borup: Okay. Thank you, sir. Semaha: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Who is next? Chapman: Thank you very much. My name is Frank Chapman. I live in Sherbrooke Hollows, and I'm the treasurer of the homeowners board and I ran some figures this afternoon, because the -- they have proposed to be a part of our association and I -- after I ran the numbers and based on our dues structure, we would be 3,000 dollars in the hole if we allowed them to come into our association, because right now our homeowners pay 150 dollars a year and our budget just breaks even on that. If we bring these folks in, they would only contribute -- 57 homes at 150 dollars to be 8,550 dollars and as the result of bringing them in, it would increase our insurance rate, it would increase the landscaping costs, the repairs, the management costs, so that our expenses would be 11,435 dollars and they are contributing 8,550 dollars, so, as you can see, we will have approximately a 3,000 dollar loss by bringing them in. Borup: It doesn't make good business sense it doesn't sound like. Chapman: And I'm a licensed CPA in the State of Idaho and I feel very confident in these figures. Borup: The insurance does go up proportionally to the number of lots? Chapman: Correct. Borup: Is that how that's affect? Chapman: Yes. The same way with the -- we have actually gone out and gotten landscaping bids that would cover the Soda Springs and the Sherbrooke Hollows and it's just not economically feasible. Borup: Okay. I can see that. Again, that would be between you and the developer, if that works out, but -- Chapman: At this point we are -- we don't want to ask our people for an increase of dues to bring them in. Borup: Makes sense to me. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 16 of 87 Chapman: So -- Borup: Thank you. Anything else you'd like to add? Chapman: That pretty well concludes -- Borup: Okay. Your understanding is that -- is that correct, as far as the irrigation, that's something Nampa-Meridian would control and -- I know they do like to tie areas together, so that that probably would be the case there, that it would probably tie together. Chapman: We have a member of the board that could probably speak to that better than I. Borup: Okay. Questions from any other Commissioners? Zaremba: You answered my question. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Chapman, and again, the irrigation thing is not something that I don't believe the city is going to really have any control over, that's going to be up to Nampa-Meridian in how they want to design that and run that. I mean it's under their jurisdiction anyway. Do we have anyone else that has anything else they'd like to add? It's your turn. Butler: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Mark Butler, 52 North 2nd Street, Eagle. I'm actually here for something else. I'm with a friend. I thought it worked well, because I hadn't anything positive come from, you know, anybody, except for the applicant. Having been a land use planner for 15 years, working in local government for 12, the last local position being the planning and zoning administrator for the City of Eagle, and now with my own business, Land Consultants, for four years. I'm not representing Mr. Jewett, but I can just tell you, he came through with Jane through Eagle with a development with a little higher density than this and it's being developed right now and Eagle accepted it wholeheartedly and you know how tough Eagle is with wanting large lots and so forth. It, actually, has lots smaller than this, even on the perimeter, where the development was adjacent to the Rick's River Ridge, where they had eight to ten thousand square foot lots, and I think what you're going to see here is a housing product that is going to be in high demand. When put the garages to the back like they have done here and create a situation where you have a neighborhood friendly development with the houses closer to the front, you do nothing but increase property values. This is a product that's going to be in high demand and I would urge you from a planning perspective, not representing anybody, to approve the R-8 zone to allow this type of development and to approve it as is. I mean that park is ten percent and that's going to be plenty fine, no respect to what Mr. Centers said, but maybe when he heard this additional information he may have changed his mind and you all see that happen from time to time, you will have one position, but you get additional information and you change your mind. I think you have plenty of open space in here, but just to conclude, I Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 17 of 87 think it's an excellent development, something you're going to be proud of and, you know, these folks are going to be friends with the people who move in here and they are going to be going -- you know, their kids are going to be playing soccer together and it will be a whole different situation when this is developed. Right it's like a fear of the unknown and I can assure you that this gentleman does a really good job on this. Mr. Roth also, who I don't think is here today. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Do we have some others? Okay. You need to come on up to the mike and state your name and we will hear your question. Godby: Good evening. My name is Louise Godby. I live at 2238 East Mackay Court in Sherbrooke Hollow. I'm one of the lucky ones that live on the end of the cul-de-sac next to the canal. I have an unfenced yard, enjoy the common area that Sherbrooke Hollow has. My concerns -- and I apologize for not being here for the whole presentation, because I had a conflicting meeting to attend and a presentation to make. My concerns are, knowing that very well, and having heard last time that nobody had looked at the back of the property, the property line starts at the middle of the canal and by my measurements the property line or their half of the canal is approximately 20 feet. There is a service road on top of that that is about 13 feet and, then, a steep canal bank that I don't know -- I don't know how to measure it, it's probably another 10 feet out of there. Is that taken out of the total of the percentage of open area? Because, obviously, we can't have kids playing on the canal. Borup: Well, there is a chain link fence separating the canal from the park -- from the open area that they are proposing to put in. Godby: And that -- then, open area consists of the chain link fence back? Borup: We may need some clarification on that. That I'm not sure. The plan does show a chain link fence separating it from the canal. Godby: Because I know they figured the property amount from the boundary, which is the middle of the canal. I mean that's -- that's something that I'd like to find out if it's really that amount of land they thought or not. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: The rule is that the open space has to be usable area, so -- Borup: We'll get an answer on that. Zaremba: That's a very good question. We'll get you an answer. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the applicant will address this I'm sure in their rebuttal, but the canal is not included in the open space calculation. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 18 of 87 Zaremba: Okay. Outside the fence line is -- Borup: So, it goes to the fence line or to the right of way, the 50 foot -- the plat shows a 50 foot -- Kirkpatrick: It goes to the 50-foot right of way. Borup: That's where the fence is shown on that same right of way. Kirkpatrick: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Yes. McKibben: Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Sherry McKibben, I'm an architect and urban designer, 515 West Hays in Boise, and I have been doing a lot of work with the community here in Meridian to try to envision what growth would look like in Meridian and I'm very pleased to see that the neighbors are concerned about, you know, their neighborhood, because neighborhoods are what make a great city. Great neighborhoods are made up of a diversity of housing types to accommodate your diverse population and as we are seeing, about 60 percent of households with one or two people in them, we are not actually accommodating the choice of housing for them and I see that this project does that. I also have always advocated for the connectivity in subdivisions, so that there are alternative path choices for walking and for vehicular traffic, so that we are not adding to the width of our roadways. So, that you can choose to go multiple directions for your destination, which may be, actually, in a diagonal pattern. I'm also seeing that open spaces connected to existing home space and that's a very valuable thing, so that people can choose not to go along the arterials to find open space and can connect within their neighborhoods. One of the wonderful things about the Comprehensive Plan in my view is the neighborhood center on the map and as difficult as they are to envision, because we have so few, hardly any, to look at, they can be fabulous places that create a sense of place in our neighborhoods and a neighborhood is not a subdivision. A neighborhood is made up of multiple developments that come together because they have the ability to connect and natural boundaries and what we have been trying to do across arterials, which are natural boundaries, put some commercial that can be used by subdivisions and connect to those subdivisions. To support that commercial, the developers tell us that we need rooftops in the walkable area, reduced transportation, people can walk. They don't have to walk every time, but the availability there is very important, because people do choose to walk some trips. So, having a little bit more density near that neighborhood center is what that's all about and that will enable you to choose maybe in the future to have transit of some kind, shuttle buses, buses or whatever, to collect people, young people, older people, that choose not to drive. The visual picture of this neighborhood with the garages on the back is something that is of great value, creating a character that -- it has people at the front of the homes looking out of the homes, instead of garages out in the front blocking the view of the street, so it actually makes it a safer place also. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 19 of 87 Borup: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else before the developer replies? Come on up. Buckland: My name is Gene Buckland. I live at 3003 South Gold Bar. I have a couple of considers -- or things to consider. First of all, the safety issues. You're putting a tot lot right next to one of the largest dangers in the valley and that's a canal. I work and I have worked in the nuclear industry where radiation is a large consideration. The three things that you look at are time, distance, and shielding. You are attracting children to a safety hazard. They are going to put a fence. We all know that children do not climb fences and they don't go around them or under them. So, we have taken care of the shielding part. The distance, you put it right next to it, so you have made it as close as you can get it, so from a safety standpoint this doesn't look very smart. There have been some comparisons between this subdivision and Heritage Commons. Well, the biggest thing that I notice the difference between this and Heritage Commons is Heritage Commons' common area is in the center where the majority of the homes can see the common area. If you look at this plat map, less than ten percent of the homes can actually see it. If you're attracting your children there and it's next to a safety hazard, wouldn't you want to be able to see them? Wouldn't you want to be able to -- we all know not everybody is going to be paying attention to their children a hundred percent of the time, so that's another consideration. Another item is in the last meeting there was a similar plat -- I think it was on Ten Mile Road, similar size, had a lot lower density and their roads were 33 feet across. This shows 29-foot roads. The reason why they went to 33-foot roads is from another safety standard or safety concern was the Fire Department requested wider roads, so that they could gain access in case of an emergency. If you have a larger density, I would suspect that you have a larger probability of having the need for emergency equipment. Also, I'd like to bring in one other item. If you take a look at the area that is surrounding this subdivision, this board is, if you will, home designers or interior decorators. Meridian is your home. The one square mile around this area or half square mile, if you take into consideration you have got a school and other lots around there, you've started a decorating of this particular room and now you're going -- you have finished three walls and you have got a certain number of wall space that's left, you've started one motif, if you will, we will say western with colors and different sizes and such and now you're going to put in something completely different. You have got three walls completed, you throw in the third wall or the last wall and you're going to do a modern black and white block style. It doesn't appear to fit. I am not against diversity I don't think anybody else is. If you go right across the street, you have your diversity, you have other options, and you have smaller homes, whatever, that meet the marketing that these people are saying that's what they are going to target. I think that in this area, if you look at the grand scheme of things, you are meeting that intent. I would encourage the board to consider maintaining a similar style on the north side of the road between Eagle and Locust Grove and have the diversity where you have already planned it. Thank you. Are there any questions? Borup: Just one for clarification. I was interested in your comments on the open area and from some other testimony, my understanding this is -- all this is open area from Sherbrooke? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 20 of 87 Buckland: That is correct. Borup: So, Sherbrooke's open area stretches along that whole way against the canal. Buckland: That is open area, but the children are not attracted to that area. If you look at little bit further over, there is an open area at the end of Mackay Court. If you like, I can -- Borup: Well, you have got a -- Buckland: Well, not Mackay Court. I'm sorry. Mackay Drive. Borup: You have got a light right there at your -- Buckland: Right there. Borup: Right here. Okay. Buckland: Yes, and that is a pretty good size common area, several homes can see it, and also it's open on the one end with no fence, that's where the majority of the children play. As you can see, there is minimal safety hazards, other than the road, in that area. Borup: So, this open area that has been touted to us as being such a great thing, you don't think it is, then? Buckland: I'm saying it's not being used, because it's fenced on the one end -- well, on the north end it's fenced by the Nampa Irrigation and it's basically not encouraged for people to go in there. Maybe in the future they will put a gate that they will encourage people in there, but right now it is not. Borup: And there is not access from here? Buckland: Yes, there is -- Borup: There is access there? Buckland: I have never seen anybody use it, so -- I don't normally go over there, and I know that my children and -- Borup: Well, the last time I walked back there, there was access, but it's been a couple of years. Buckland: Okay. Borup: But I didn't -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 21 of 87 Buckland: There may be access there, but I'm just familiar with access right here. Borup: So, there is, it looks like. Buckland: Yes, there is. Borup: Okay. Buckland: There is access there. Zaremba: But you're point is it's not attractive to children, it would be adults that would use it as a walking path. Buckland: Exactly, and if an adult is going to fall in the canal, then, sorry. But children need -- we are their custodians. Borup: So, your area is not fenced? Buckland: I don't believe so. It is fenced? Borup: Okay. The testimony -- we need to get you -- Zaremba: It's not on the record. Borup: It was mentioned that that area is fenced clear along the canal. Obviously, it's not an appeal to you because you have never been there I can see. Buckland: Not really. Borup: All right. Thank you. Buckland: Any other questions? Borup: Okay. Did we have anyone else? Did you have some final comment, Mr. Jewett? Jewett: Thank you. Just for point of clarification. I believe that's a drainage lot, so I don't know how conducive it is for playing after a rain. I'll just touch on a few of the issues that some of the people had. On our neighbor to the east, I appreciate his offer to allow us to put a fence along -- on his side of the property line, because that's one of our issues, ACHD will not allow us put it -- if you can go to the plat, please. ACHD will not allow us to put a fence in their right of way here, so if he allowed us to put a fence on his side of the property line, we would be more than happy to accommodate that and put that in. As he stated, he has a lot of trees. He has a considerable windrow of trees along there that already acts as a natural landscape barrier. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 22 of 87 Borup: So, is there room between the trees and your property to do a fence? Jewett: There is an existing fence. Yes. Borup: So, it will just be right along the location of that existing fence. Jewett: So, he has a natural barrier and I don't think that anything I could do could improve that. The irrigation, he's a winner in this one, because his statement that we now -- these two parcels irrigate currently off the same head gate, once we go off that head gate and we pipe it directly in, he doesn't have to share it anymore, it's all his now. So, he will be a winner in regards to the irrigation. Comment was made regarding specific plans architectural plans should be submitted before anything gets approved. I think the offer to allow the homeowners association architectural control and using the guidelines was a fairly reasonable offer and I think I understand that if they want to decline that, that's their option, and we just move on accordingly. Again, I don't believe we have narrowed any lots along Victory. We redesigned this corner, because of ACHD's -- wanted to move the entrance, but I -- and we did take some lots there and move them there, but I don't -- Borup: That was a change I noticed. The one lot went -- you changed the orientation of it, so instead of -- Jewett: That's correct. Borup: -- being the long way, it was a narrower -- Jewett: Yes. We did change the orientation, because the way the entrance to the subdivision modified from the original layout to meet ACHD's requirements. The drainage lot. My engineer is here or somebody that works for my engineer is here tonight. He could gladly answer any of your questions regarding the drainage and the drainage lot area. Borup: I think the question on that was -- is this drainage lot higher than -- higher in elevation than the neighbors to the west. Jewett: And -- two things. No, it is not. It is lower, and, number two, there is a drainage ditch that is located along here and, then, piped through Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision, that's our source of an overflow. So, the potential -- Borup: The exiting ditch? Jewett: The existing ditch. So, that will be our source of overflow, so I don't see that as a problem. I know in our original plan, the drainage lot did split two lots. I can't tell by this one, but I don't believe it splits -- it think it's behind -- oh, I'm sorry, I'm being told that it does split two lots. But our intention is we can landscape behind that if Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 23 of 87 somebody has an issue with looks, but as far as flooding, I -- we are required -- or my engineer is required to engineer that that happen, so -- Borup: Understand that. Jewett: I won't touch on the HO issue anymore. Their decision can be in the form of a letter and that's done. I won't argue expenses, what they calculate the homeowners association. If I have to set up my own homeowners association, I'm required to go out and set those same expenses, budget, and charge the lots accordingly. That's what we do. Appreciate the comments from Mark Butler. The open space and drawing towards the open space, I believe on the Comp Plan that we are drawn by a lot of pathways that are along canals and that's -- we are being steered that direction and so locating tot lots along that seems to be a logical choice. In this particular instance, it's logical. Use of that tot lot, again, whether or not we join Sherbrooke Hollows HOA, that tot lot will be available to any child, parent, or anybody in Sherbrooke Hollow, because it is going to be a community and we will not fence it off and say you can't come and nor would the city allow us, and who's to say retired people can't have grandkids that want to come over and play in it. There are many friends, children, it's -- there will be people utilizing the tot lot, whether they actually live in the subdivision or visiting the subdivision or in Sherbrooke Hollow and in Thousand Springs or even across the street in Tuscany will come over and visit friends. That's what a neighborhood is all about? There was a comment made regarding Heritage Commons Park that is in the center. I don't know how -- it's a different feel, it's a different design. I don't think we all need to do the same thing. It has its purposes ours has ours. The only thing the 33 feet versus the 29-foot, we didn't have any interconnectivity here, unfortunately, to Sherbrooke Hollow and so our design is very grid like. It provides multiple ways of getting to the central point, so traffic is diverted, so the 29-foot is well warranted here and was approved by ACHD. So, we could actually go 33 feet and it doesn't the plat. We are doing a 50-foot right of way in a lot of that area, so -- so, unless I missed something that's real important, I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions, Commissioners? Rohm: I just have one question. Does this common lot in the adjacent subdivision -- this is your common lot. Is this their common lot as well? Jewett: That's correct. Rohm: And so your intent -- Jewett: Oh, no, that's -- Rohm: Okay. This is a lot here? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 24 of 87 Jewett: No. That is their common lot. This is the back of the last house. They have a fence that goes from here and here and there is a ditch here, but this is all green common lot for Sherbrooke Hollow. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Anything, David? Zaremba: No. Borup: Maybe some -- you had mentioned at the beginning about a fence to the east and without really detailing what you would be proposing for that, and along how much -- are you talking from your common area to Victory? Jewett: We would be willing to build a privacy fence from this location to this location. Borup: Okay. Jewett: And, if wanted, to this location. I don't believe in fencing off common areas. Borup: That's what I was thinking, too, but -- except there is access to the neighbors, so -- Jewett: Then I would -- Borup: Or some type of fence. Jewett: Chain link, so the feel would not be closed off and so that would not be a privacy, but in this area from here to here it could be a full privacy. But I just think common areas should have privacy fences. Borup: Okay, and that would be the same type of fence around the rest of your property? Is that what -- Jewett: Yeah. Six foot cedar. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Jewett: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners? Still some questions that we need to discuss? Zaremba: Well, it's a tough one for me. We ask for innovative projects, we ask for higher densities, particularly near neighborhood centers, and this project answers a lot of those requests. Totally unrelated to this and not having anything to do with this project, I spent several days last week knocking on doors in Thousand Springs and Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 25 of 87 Sherbrooke Hollow and talking to people about their issues and what hasn't come up is the distance that these residential areas are from any emergency response and how long it would take to get there and that's a big issue in that area. I drove around the area quite a bit and, frankly, I have become uncomfortable with the number of people we are putting at risk by not having Locust Grove Overpass done and not having the Fire Station on Eagle. The number of homes that are already developed in this area are pushing the limit of safety and Tuscany, which has already been approved, has some houses being framed, but not occupied yet. We have hundreds of more residential buildings that have already been approved and appeared yet and, I don't know, I would seek the opinion of the other Commissioners. We are verging on irresponsibility of approving anymore subdivisions until those two things have happened and nobody has raised that as an issue at the moment, but I know a number of people in the neighborhood -- both those neighborhoods -- not talking about this project at all, just talking about their own homes and their own safety and I worry that the City of Meridian -- you know, I'm not anti-development, but I -- it scares me to be approving anymore development until I see ground being broken on a Fire Station south of the interstate and Locust Grove Overpass. That's an opinion. I don't know if I have any support for it or not. Borup: Well, I would be interested in what the Fire Department has to say. Zaremba: Well, I notice we don't have any -- normally, we get a letter from them that say this is outside our five-minute response zone, and, therefore, it's a danger. I do not see that letter in relation to this. Clearly, the applicant has been talking to the Fire Department, because they have agreed on this second access and how it's going to work and the Fire Department is not throwing up their hands and saying no. Borup: I mean we did receive a letter from the Fire Department. Zaremba: I did see a letter, but I didn't see the -- this is outside the five minute response sentence that's usually in there. Borup: Right. So, they had no written objections. Zaremba: Yeah. I'm kind of -- my objection, actually, have really nothing to do with this development. I think it answers a bunch of things we have asked for. Borup: Well -- and I'm wondering -- back to the Fire Department, the last -- the last report they had we are talking about -- I mean we have got the site and it's planned for. I think part of the -- as I understood it, part of the reason it hadn't been built yet, they are waiting for population increase to somewhat justify it, weren't they? Zaremba: Well, I think that's coming. That population increases has already been improved, if you count Tuscany and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 26 of 87 Borup: Well -- and I don't remember what those numbers were that they were looking for and if we are there yet or close enough that they should be -- Zaremba: Well, I guess my concern is -- I do transportation issues, so I go out and time traffic and do all sorts of stuff like that. I went over to what I believe is the nearest Fire Station on Franklin near Meridian and I timed how long it took me to drive to this area. It took me -- going across Franklin and down Eagle and making the turn onto Victory, on Victory, I passed Brandy's Jewell at seven minutes, I got to the intersection of Gold Bar and McKay at eight minutes. Granted, I'm driving a car. Borup: Did you try it the other way? Zaremba: I ran into no traffic. Every light I hit was green, except for one that was turning green as I approached it, so I slowed down a little bit. I know I can make the corners faster in my car than a fire truck can. The roads are uneven and there is much uphill, so I probably had better acceleration up the hills than a fire truck could make. My assessment is that an expert fire truck driver, using their lights and sirens and their ability to change lights, might be able to beat me by 30 seconds. So, there is a long response time getting to this area and that's plus whatever it would take to stop and hook up to a hydrant and actually get water on a fire. So, you think here is a neighbor, they see smoke coming out of somebody else's house, which has been happening for some time, they call the Fire Department, 15 minutes later they have got water on the fire and probably by, then, we have got three houses involved. My concern -- Borup: You didn't try the other direction? Zaremba: I didn't come down Meridian. Borup: Okay. Well, you took the longest route. You realize that. Zaremba: Well, Locust Grove would be the shortest route, but it doesn't connect. Borup: No, but going to Meridian is a shorter route than the way you took. Zaremba: And across Victory that way? Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: I didn't go that way. Borup: I mean it doesn't make a lot of difference. Zaremba: It seemed shorter to me, but -- anyhow, my concern is -- and, actually, not specific with this project, but just whether we need to wait until we got the services available. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 27 of 87 Borup: Okay. Commissioner Rohm? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I tried to take very good notes as I listened to each person speak this evening and there were a number of issues, of which I listed six of, and I'm just going to go through them quickly and kind of give my summation. The first one was the fence along the east line and I believe the developer has concurred with the property owner to the east that he's willing to work with him. Borup: Well, more than that. He said he'd put the fence in. Rohm: Right. Right. The fence would go in. So, you know, I checked that one off. The second one is the irrigation issue and, basically, the property owner is going to have full use of the water and he will, actually, have better use of the water than we did before. That was -- that was the second issue that was brought up. The third issue was the homeowners association, of which the existing homeowners association said that they were not interested in this development joining and the developer says that they will form their own homeowners association and will -- and I'd like to speak to that for just a moment. In that I believe the desire to join the homeowners association was not so much to benefit themselves, as in to provide the people with the assurance that their development was not going to go sideways from what they have seen within their own development. So, it appeared to me as if it was an offer and of which logical objection, based upon cost, and I don't have any problem with that, but at least there was an effort to meet in the middle there and I appreciate both sides of that issue. The next one was the common area and the concern about it including the square footage adjacent to the canal. Staff has addressed that issue and it doesn't appear as if the common area includes the portion that cannot be used and so the ten percent common area seems appropriate for this development, just as it would for any other development. The last issue that I made notes on was the safety issues associated with the common area being adjacent to the canal. That common area is going to be fenced, just as the adjacent subdivision's common area is fenced from the canal and it seems if it's work for one, I can't see any reason why it wouldn't work for the next one. That's -- that's all the notes that I took. It appears to me that all of the verbalized concerns have been addressed, but, quite honestly, I believe that the nonverbalized concerns are based upon the square footages of the homes being proposed and lot sizes being downsized from the adjacent subdivision. To that, I would like to say that I believe that the lots adjacent to the existing subdivision have been -- have taken that into consideration and there is a transition and it appears as if there has been an effort to meet on that issue as well, and that's all I have to say. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Good analysis. I think that covers the notes I had. Well, Commissioners, would we like to proceed? Zaremba: Let's see. We are not going to ask for any more discussion. I would move that we close the Public Hearing on these three items. Rohm: I'd second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 28 of 87 Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing on items four, five, and six. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Then, I would ask staff to go through their report -- my latest staff comment is for the hearing of October 2nd and there are a number of items that have been solved since, then, and perhaps prompt us on what has been solved. Kirkpatrick: I believe that the primary issue and why we continued the item -- the hearing item last -- when we were here about a month ago, was that they did not clearly meet the two amenities. There was some debate over whether they are counting the regional pathway as an amenity, whether that could be counted. They have, essentially, solved that problem by increasing their open space to over ten percent where now they are providing the tot lot and the ten percent open space. So, they now clearly meet the requirement for two amenities for the planned development. Let's see. And I'm not certain if -- when we were at Planning and Zoning Commission last hearing if they had resolved their issues with the Fire Department. Those issues have since been resolved, regarding where they can have the second access point, and we have a letter from Meridian Fire Department, dated September 19th, regarding the revised plans and approving the temporary access, and those were -- those were the significant procedural issues that were -- that needed to be addressed in the last hearing. Are there any other questions of staff? Borup: Not from me. Thank you. Zaremba: Well, I guess I will say again, my objection to this is not on the merits of it. I seem to be taking a position about the Fire Department that even the Fire Department is not taking. If it's the intent of the Fire Department to have a certain amount of development before they move to build a Fire Station on Eagle, that would give me reason, actually, to approve this, rather than disapprove it, to help move them along. I'm not sure that moves the Locust Grove overpass any closer, but we have a new mayor that's intent on having that happen -- or a mayor elect who is intent on having that happen. So, the only other piece of it we haven't discussed -- and it's six of one, half a dozen of the other, whether this hurts or helps property values. I think -- well, you know, we asked to have not just the same old cookie cutter things and to have, actually, a variety of housing types available. If this is done in an attractive manner, I -- just a personal opinion, not facts, I could see this enhancing the value of the neighborhood itself. If the Fire Department is not hopping up and down saying we can't do this, I think I'm ready to move that we do it. Rohm: I'm with you. Zaremba: Do you want to do it or do you want me to? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 29 of 87 Rohm: I'll make a stab at it, because I've -- Zaremba: All right. Rohm: All right. Mr. Chairman -- Zaremba: The reason that we push that back and forth is that we have depended on Jerry Centers to make most of the motions. He keeps very good notes and we may add one or two things and he's missed for a lot of reasons. Rohm: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to send continued Public Hearing on AZ 03-023, request for annexation and zoning of 11 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc., 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road, on to the City Council for approval. This motion should include all comments staff the report dated -- I believe it's October 13th. Borup: October 2nd is the one I'm looking at. Zaremba: I just had it in front of me. Rohm: Excuse me. October 2nd. Borup: And, then, received on the 26th. That was for the October 2nd meeting. The hearing date was for October 2nd. Rohm: Okay. Borup: They sent the minutes on the 26th. Rohm: End of motion. Zaremba: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second for annexation and zoning. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to send PP 03-027, request for preliminary plat approval of 58 building lots and eight other lots on 11 acres in a proposed R-8 zone in proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc., 2310 and 2384 East Victory Road, to the City Council for approval. This motion includes all comments from the staff report dated October 2nd. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 30 of 87 Zaremba: I would ask that we add that the preliminary plat that we are referring to is the one received by the City Clerk on October 23rd and that that changes the number of building lots to 57. Rohm: So amended. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Discussion. Would it be appropriate to add about the fence along the eastern boundary? That was part of the testimony, but it's not showing on the plat. Zaremba: That would be plat, as opposed to CUP? I think that's correct. Rohm: Yes. So add that to the motion as well to include the map along the east line -- the fence along the east line. Zaremba: Which may, with the cooperation of the eastern neighbor, be on the eastern neighbor's property. Borup: Right. Which is a little different to do an off-site improvement, but the developer has agreed to that and the neighbor has agreed to allow that. Zaremba: I second the amendment as well. Borup: Okay. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Rohm: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to send CUP 03-043, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a mix of single family detached residential lot size and amenities for proposed Soda Springs Subdivision by JLJ Enterprises, Inc., 2310 and 2384 East Victory on to the City Council for approval. This motion includes all comments from the staff report dated October 2nd. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. The only question I had on that was the -- the house sizes that were given to us in the meeting last month, I don't believe are part of the staff report, are they? But can we assume that would be incorporated in on the testimony or do we need to restate those? Zaremba: Spell those out? Kirkpatrick: I believe it would need to be added as a condition, if you do wish to include it. It was just a part of testimony at the last hearing. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 31 of 87 Borup: Okay. Rohm: Was that not 1,500 square feet for a single family? Borup: Yes. Well, yeah, and the north and -- on the west and north lots is 1,500 feet on the single, 1,750 on the two story, which I think was equivalent to the Sherbrooke covenants, and 1,300 single story on Victory and, then -- and, then, on the alley lots, which would, essentially, would be the rest of the lots -- that would be the rest of the lots in the subdivision, is 1,300 on single, 1,600 on two story. Is that what the -- Powell: The applicant is nodding in agreement. Borup: Okay. That was my note from last time, so -- Rohm: I think it's appropriate to add that as an amendment to that motion. Zaremba: And the second accepts that. Borup: Okay. Powell: Chairman, before you vote on that one, can I -- I would prefer to leave a little room to say that it be referenced on the plat, rather than specifically noted on the plat. It's an issue that we need to raise with City Council, but we are trying to -- Borup: Well, that's what I was wondering. Right now this is under the CUP, but should it be on the plat? Should we have done that on the last one? Powell: If you ask for it to be referenced on the plat, I think we can accommodate it that way, but I would prefer you use the word referenced, rather than specifically stated. Borup: Okay. Powell: Just -- it's a larger issue. If you would like for me to explain it further, I will, but I'll leave it up to you. Borup: I think we will take your word for it. Rohm: So referenced. Zaremba: This restriction that we making under the CUP will be referenced on the plat. Rohm: On the plat? Yeah. Zaremba: I second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 32 of 87 Borup: All right. Chris, do you have any questions on that motion? Can you figure out what we did there? Gabbert: I think you guys have it well done. I just wanted to reference and make sure that the -- this is an open discussion now when you guys are making your motion. Did you open the hearing again? Borup: No. No. This is just between the Commission and staff. Gabbert: Okay. Borup: And you, and why, do you feel it needs to be -- I mean we didn't -- we haven't brought up anything new. Zaremba: At this point I would say we are discussing the motion, which is not an open hearing issue. Borup: Right. All right. That was my question, is that motion kind of jumped around a little bit and I wanted to make sure you felt that you understood what -- for you report. Okay. Zaremba: That you got all the elements of it. Rohm: And if not, we can go back to the minutes. Zaremba: Yeah. There you go. Borup: Maybe you could figure it out from the minutes. Okay. Do we have both a first and a second -- I mean a motion and a second? Zaremba: Yes, and all the amendments. Borup: All in favor. Any opposed. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Okay. That does conclude this project. It will be going to City Council for Public Hearing there and I guess we'll have the same process all over. Thank you, everyone. Okay. Next item is Public Hearing PP 03-029, request for preliminary plat approval. Let's wait a couple minutes. Rohm: Yeah. Let's -- Borup: Do you want a break right now? Rohm: This seems like a good time for a break. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 33 of 87 Borup: Okay. Let's do that while the audience is leaving. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 7: Public Hearing: PP 03-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6 building lots on 2.064 acres in a L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers – 2150 West Cherry Lane: Item 8: Public Hearing: CUP 03-048 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for nursing home care for up to 40 patients and office use with reduced setbacks and landscaping requirements in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. – 2150 West Cherry Lane: Borup: We will proceed. Yes. We'd like to continue with items number seven and eight, Public Hearing PP 03-029, request preliminary plat approval of six building lots on 2.065 acres in an L-O zone for Cherry Lane Office Park Subdivision and CUP for the same project, CUP 03-048, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for nursing home care. I'd like to open -- I'd like to open both public hearings at this time start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Craig Hood, Planning and Zoning Staff. The applicant Pinnacle Engineers has requested Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit approval for a planned development on 2.07 acres of land located in the north -- located on the north side of Fairview Avenue, approximately a third of a mile west of Linder Road. The subject site lies within a public, quasi-public area on the 2002 Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The property is presently zoned L-O and is currently used for church-related activities. The submitted preliminary plat proposes six office lots, with the landscaping, driveways, parking and common area within easements. The CUP PD includes a request to allow the operation of a nursing home facility in the L-O zone and modified development standards, including reduced building setbacks and reduced landscape buffer widths abutting Cherry Lane and adjacent to the exist building. As part of the PD, the applicant is proposing two small landscape plazas with the picket fences as the two required amenities. The first plaza is located in the front of the nursing home facility and is approximately 1,750 square feet in size. The second plaza is located on the east side of the eastern driveway and is approximately 1,300 square feet in size. The plazas compose approximately 3.5 percent of the gross site area. Staff has recommended, with conditions, approval of the submitted preliminary plat. Although this site is currently zoned L-O, staff had recommended denial of the submitted CUP PD, because at that time it did not appear to be consistent with the Meridian City -- City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has since submitted a letter addressing staff's recommendations and I believe that you all should have a copy of that. If not, we can get you a copy. But staff did recommend denial of the CUP PD and will stand for any questions you may have. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 34 of 87 Borup: Questions from any Commissioners? Zaremba: Let's see. I'm just -- I'm trying to see whether on the revised plat we got -- if they resolved the landscape and setback issues or not. Borup: I think their letter addressed some of that. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the applicant -- the question is -- they are measuring the setback of the buildings from the back of the sidewalk and the setback should be measured from the property line. They are showing a 15-foot setback from the back of the walk. However, it's only 13 feet from the property line. So, that was the issue that was brought up and I don't believe any changes were made on the revised plat. That was prior to the staff report and those comments going out to the applicant. Borup: We may need to get some clarification on that. Zaremba: I guess the only other question would be a Comprehensive Plan question. It was given the quasi-public designation because it was a church. Borup: Exactly. Zaremba: If it stops being a church, should it lose that designation and just be a straight L-O? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, we don't know. I mean that -- this was the first one to come through and we met with the applicant a couple different times, told them that we had these concerns, and that, quite honestly, as staff, you know, we are not allowed make those quasi-judicial decisions and that's your job in life and, then, the City Council after you. So, just from the staff perspective, there is not enough information in the Comprehensive Plan to tell us what should be done with these once they stop being -- well, there is some information. It doesn't specifically talk about reuse, but it says other uses that are appropriate and that was all we could really go by, so is it reasonable. Zaremba: Well -- and I understood the nursing home is -- Powell: Right. Zaremba: -- acceptable in a quasi-public -- Powell: You know, is it -- is it reasonable? Probably. It's just there wasn't enough in the Comprehensive Plan that we could forward a staff recommendation for approval and we were clear with the applicant from the get go on that topic and we just -- our job is to try and stay as close as we can to not making quasi-judicial decisions and just guiding you Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 35 of 87 in yours, so we are working on a zoning consistency matrix, just as a better guide to add that to the Comp Plan and that this issue is one of the ones that we don't know where the City Council wants to go, we don't where you want to go, so we kind of view this as an opportunity to find out, you know, what we check off as appropriate for those. The other -- the other issue is similar to the Office Jet Subdivision that we were talking about the other day. There have been a couple little issues and this was an opportunity to find out what you think about this one. But there is a little guidance in the Comp Plan. Some of you were more involved than I was in the drafting of that Comp Plan certainly, so I don't know if you have any recollections or -- to my knowledge I don't think it was really ever discussed, especially in a public forum, so -- Borup: I don't think that was ever anticipated that the use would change. It wasn't addressed either way that I can remember. Powell: And it affects not just churches. I mean there are other quasi-public uses that could change and maybe it's -- and maybe it has to be done on a case-by-case basis. If the sewer treatment plant ever wanted to change, a church or light office might not be appropriate back there, but I mean that's, obviously, not a real example, but, you know, it is another quasi-public use that we have, so -- Borup: And one of the thoughts I had -- and maybe this is a early, but just, you know, the things that we discussed before that one of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan is to be a guideline that even sometimes some of the map is not -- does not necessarily always set boundaries, but -- I don't know. We need to get into the testimony a little bit, but -- so the question is what takes -- from what you're saying, what carries the most weight, the L-O zoning or the Comprehensive Plan designation. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: Anything else, Mr. Hood? Did that conclude -- okay. Zaremba: Well, I mean on that point, in the ordinance there is no such zone as quasi public. Borup: Right. Zaremba: That's not really a zone. There is an L-O zone. Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: It's a use. Borup: Okay. Let's proceed with Mr. McKinnon. McKinnon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Dave McKinnon, 735 South Crosstimber. It's kind of a sad opportunity to talk in front of you tonight. I Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 36 of 87 echo the comments that have been offered already concerning Commissioner Centers. Besides losing a great friend in the industry, I lost a friend as well, and I really respected his smirks and his sometimes brutal honesty that he had with -- with myself and with people that he wanted to work with. He was always a very -- a very gregarious person when he did that, though. Well, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it seems like there is really one big issue that needs to be decided with this and it sounds like there has been some discussion already about this and let's jump right into that. It has to deal with the quasi public and the public use of this property and how it became as such. If I could indulge you must for a moment on a little bit of history concerning the Comprehensive Plan and concerning the fact this is not the first time you guys have made a decision changing a quasi-public open space to an office use. In the creation of the Comprehensive Plan land use map, one of the first things that was done was to go out and take an inventory of the existing uses and after making an inventory, you create a map with those existing uses and give land use designations to that. The remaining portion of that -- of the properties that are in the City of Meridian's area of impact are, then, looked at and decided upon in a large group meeting, sometimes a charrette, sometimes it was just with a guidance committee and they determine what those uses should be. Typically, the uses for existing uses, such as the church use and the other quasi-public uses, those uses were not discussed as being essential uses that are required to be in the city. However, those are uses that are existing in the city and so that's the reason why it was showed as such on the Comprehensive Plan. I know that all three of you were present when a vote taken about eight months, nine months ago now on the Episcopalian Church on the 8th Street. They, too, requested an L-O, zone because they were moving out of their church and they wanted to be able to market their church for more than just a church use. They were in an R-8 zone and you recommended approval to an L-O zone. So, there is some history of doing that. Borup: But the other part of that is because the residential zones -- right. McKinnon: -- in the L-O zone, it would be allowed to expand as well. If I can address Commissioner Zaremba's concern as to whether or not Comprehensive map has to change to an L-O zone to reflect the changes that may be made tonight. You may remember that this exact church, the Central Valley Baptist Church, recently received approval to move to the corner of Ten Mile and Pine Street. At that time the Comprehensive Plan was not required to be changed to a quasi-public and public. At that time, rather, the existing designation on the Comp Plan remained as the mixed use, rather than being changed to quasi-public or public. There is not a need to change the Comprehensive Plan to match that, and I might lean on Chris a little heavy tonight. I don't know Chris real well, I might make him earn his money tonight, because I have a couple questions for him that maybe he can help answer and add to this discussion. But if we could just jump right into the idea of whether or not this use is a quasi-public use or a public use as designated on the Comprehensive Plan and whether or not that's a good idea. In the Comprehensive Plan there are a number of uses that are listed that are allowed in the quasi public and they include cemeteries, parks -- and that's urban parks and larger parks. It includes other types of open space for recreation facilities. It also includes schools, both public and private schools, and if staff wants to correct me Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 37 of 87 and add if there is anything I have missed. Utilities and government facilities as well and in determining the type of use that would be the best service for this property, it is determined that we'd have to decide what to do with the church first and the developer looked at this site and decided and that this would make a great location for a nursing home. It's a building that's already shaped for such and with a little more reconstruction that it could be become a nursing home. But, then, the question remains is what do you do with the remainder of the church parking lot and if you go back to the quasi-public uses and you look at what would be allowed, obviously, a cemetery doesn't make sense there in this location. A park doesn't make sense in this location. The Parks Department, having talked with Doug Strong, has no interest in acquiring this for parkland, it's too small, and he wouldn't want to maintain it. Government facility. The government hasn't come forward to say that they want this facility. No utility companies have come forward to say they would like this. As far as a school that would be allowed to be placed at this location, we are dealing with a site, after you take out the nursing home facility, of less than two acres. No schools would like to relocate and build on somebody thing like that. They couldn't meet the parking standards for that. So, essentially, all of the uses that would be allowed per the Comprehensive Plan don't make sense on this site. We can revert back to the existing zoning and this is a rezone that took place in the late '90s. It was not a conditional rezone, it was rezone to L-O without conditions, which meant that those zoning ordinances -- I'm going to rely on you, Chris, real quick here -- that because it was a zoning ordinance change, adopted by ordinance, rather than by resolution, such as the Comprehensive Plan, all of the entitlements that go along with the L-O zone, such as the uses that are permitted uses in that zone, would be allowed if they were requested. The reason why we are having this discussion tonight is because we have requested reduced setbacks in this zone as part of the Conditional Use Permit. If we had not requested the reduced setbacks -- the reduced setbacks, we would only be looking at the findings required for a preliminary plat. The findings for a preliminary plat do not include the consideration of whether it complies with the Comprehensive Plan. You have the staff report and you have the findings. That's not included in the findings. It's only included in the Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, if we had not asked for those reduced standards, this would have been a project that could be approved without having to have the discussion concerning Comprehensive Plan consistency. So, that brings us to all of the requirements that -- all the, I guess, reduced standards that we have asked for and to whether or not those make sense in this area -- just a few minutes ago, Commissioner Zaremba, you mentioned that you wanted to see unique and new types of projects to try some new things and we think we have tried to do that with this site plan. We have, actually, instead of placing office buildings at the back with parking on the front and, then, landscaping in front of that, we tried to make this more pedestrian friendly following a new urbanism design. The entire site is surrounded by residential uses and rather than require that those people drive a car to this site and, then, walk across a parking lot and through a large landscape buffer to get to the services that could be provided in this subdivision, we put the buildings closer to the front. In order to accommodate the parking and drive aisles, we have had to ask for reduce setbacks in the buffer and it was an oversight on my side, I didn't communicate entirely clearly with my drafter about the 15 feet. He took it from the back of sidewalk, it should be from the property, and we Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 38 of 87 can live with the 15 feet for reduced setbacks from there. The remainder of the property -- not the office, but the existing nursing facility -- the existing parking lot right now, we have asked for reduced setback to keep the existing parking. That's on the west end of the project. We just ask that we keep the existing parking and keep the existing landscaping in that area. So, that covers some of the reasons why we have done what we have done. As far as the plazas there was some concern in the staff report regarding the amenities that were requested -- that we are requesting approval for the reduced setbacks and there was some discussion to the fact that the amenities that we provided are not the types of amenities the City of Meridian would like to see for this area. But we looked at the list of amenities the City of Meridian has suggested for this type of area. A walking path doesn't make sense in this area. We have sidewalks and we have provided sidewalks leading to the buildings from those sidewalks. A walking path didn't make sense within this area. In addition, the sites are too small. A tot lot doesn't make for an office or nursing home. There is no need for it. Other recreational facilities are typically not something you would find on a two-acre site, especially a site that's devoted to office and nursing home. Rather, we decided to take the type of amenity that would more of a passive -- a sitting type of an amenity and we have added some picnic tables and some plazas and in talking with Craig -- we have talked a little bit about creating the plazas to be a little bit bigger and I will get to that as I offer some suggested conditions of approval that were not included in your packet, so we will have to work on those tonight. That basically covers all of the reasons why we should be dealing with the -- how we should approve this project. The quasi public doesn't make sense and we have to look at the project as does this project make sense and go over the principles of planning, what makes sense, what's the highest and best use for this property. So, we jump down page ten of the staff report, if you guys could all grab your staff report really quick and grab a pen, I have got some recommended conditions of approval. After talking with Craig about whether or not there should be conditions of approval included in this staff report, he said that because it was a recommendation for denial he wouldn't include those, but having read through the staff report, I have taken some time to list what some of the specific conditions of approval he did actually recommend are. If you could look down to the final paragraph on page ten, the first italicized area that starts with because the parking area currently exists in modifying the parking to meet the standard would result of landscaping on Cherry Lane, staff recommends an alternative alteration of the standard area dimension for the parking area west of the driveway. That's if the application is approved. I would label that number one. In discussing with Craig on this project, he suggested that this be relabeled to compact stalls, because they don't meet the full length and the drive aisle width is too small. Those are all of the parking stalls in front of the nursing home facility and we can live with that, to restripe those if that's your wish. That's something that we can work with staff and with you to amend the project. That parking would be for those people that in the nursing home and for the employees of the nursing home. The second condition of approval that I have noted in here that Craig recommend is the -- Powell: Excuse me, sir. Craig doesn't really – he has talked about some of these. There are no conditions of approval recommended. The staff recommendation is for denial. If the Commission decides to go ahead and recommend approval, then, we will Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 39 of 87 come back with conditions of approval for you at another hearing. I think that would be the appropriate thing, rather than trying to rewrite the staff report. Rather than trying to write a staff report during the Public Hearing time, I think it would be better to come back with a written out conditions of approval for you to look at and review and critique at another hearing, if that's the desire of the Commission. Borup: Probably more consistent with what we normally would -- McKinnon: It would be consistent -- just to add what Anna said, in discussions with staff I actually requested that conditions of approval be added in case there was -- you know, on the off chance that you recommend approval with this project, so we would not have to continue this hearing for another night, because it takes up more time of your Commission and it takes up time for my developer and it costs money to have the motion moved on, and what we are offering is suggested recommendations of approval. In addition to that, it states correctly in the staff report that if the application is approved, he would like to see these things happen. So, on page 11 and -- Borup: Okay. I remember reading that earlier. McKinnon: Again, I offer these just as suggestion. Borup: Well, Commissioners, would -- maybe we ought to proceed with the rest of the items and, then, if we are looking at recommendations, let's cover that at the end. Zaremba: The difficulty of proceeding -- and I appreciate, Dave, the thought that you put into it. The difficulty of proceeding that way is that our motion would be like a 25- minute motion and it's so much easier to just say we agree with the staff report or -- you know, one or two sentences are different. Borup: Unless we had a formal written -- Zaremba: I'm inclined to go to the -- to go the direction of thinking this would be a useful project. I agree with staff that there are a couple things that need to be adjusted in it. But my inclination would be to continue it and have staff report reflect the things that you're asking. McKinnon: Okay. Zaremba: It certainly makes the motion much easier when we make it, because we, essentially, have to repeat everything you're saying. Borup: Unless we had that all out in writing. Zaremba: Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 40 of 87 Borup: The each Commissioner would have a copy of and the staff and -- but I assume we don't. McKinnon: Well, maybe Craig can help me out with this. Do you have anything written down, Craig, that you have here tonight that we could possibly look at a break or after this -- during the meeting tonight at a different time? Hood: Mr. Chair, Dave, I mean I have some notes, but nothing that's -- I mean if we are going the direction of making recommendation for approval, I had specific notes on what I thought we definitely needed to include in that staff report. I don't -- Borup: It's not prepared? Hood: Yeah. It's not fully in a form, I don't think, that would be comprehensive enough to include everything that should be included. Borup: That's kind of what I assume. Well, let's go through and maybe hit some of the other items and see of there is -- McKinnon: Well, I'll quit numbering them, then, but let's go ahead and -- Zaremba: Let's get all the discussion out, but -- McKinnon: Let's quit numbering them, let's just go ahead and go to the next one at page 11 and go to the italicized portion. Borup: Okay, and you handled the 15 and 13-foot things, so we are okay there. McKinnon: Yeah. Let's go on to page 11. Page 11, the italicized portion. In exchange for the reduced buffer width the land use as outlined, that the planned buffer materials along the west and northern property lines in accordance with MCC 12-13, 12-3, and that's something that we would have to agree with, that's something that we can do. There are some sewer lines that we can't plant on top of the sewer will come around the backside of the church building. Just to give you an example, currently, the sewer for the church is at this location in the far -- I guess that would be the northwest corner of the subdivision. The reason for the sewer being in this location is that it runs back to the cul-de-sac to the manhole in the residential portion of the subdivision and so we will have to create a new sewer service line that runs -- actually, it will be a main line that will run up 90 degrees here with a manhole, run to 90 degree with a manhole here, then, run down and gravity feed back to this point. We won't be able to plant any trees on top of the sewer easement at this location, down across the back of the building here as well. No additional trees will be able to be planted in that area due to the sewer requirements from the City of Meridian. We will work with staff to accommodate the landscaping that would be required there. On to D, the amenities on page 11, the final statement, in the applicant should provide a note on the plat and other means to make sure that the common areas throughout the development are maintained. I suggest Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 41 of 87 that if you make recommendation for approval on the preliminary plat that be included on the preliminary recommendation for approval, rather than the Conditional Use Permit, as that would be a note on the plat. We don't have any concerns with that. Item C, circulation and design, parking, internal drive aisles on the west -- that's the limited italicized portion again. These are all the recommendations that Craig is making. But all internal drive aisles east of the western driveway shall be 25 feet in width. Can we go back, Craig, to the drawing? That's in direct -- that would on this one. The western drive aisles be 25 feet in width. East of the western drive -- okay. That's dealing with this area right here. This drive aisle be reduced from 41 feet to 25 feet. We have no concerns with that. Item D on page 11 under in the Comprehensive Plan consistency, which we have already talked about and, again, we disagree with staff that this does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is a plan that's not necessarily something that is followed or set in stone. In fact, it's just a plan, that's what it is, and that's why I'm going to relay on you, Chris, for a little bit of guidance on that. I know that Bill Nichols has shared his opinion on that before, that the Comprehensive Plan is not an item that's set in stone, that there is some -- there is some forgiveness in that to allow for some changes, if it makes sense. Zaremba: Well -- and I think that's -- it's easily defensible to go either direction. My feeling probably supports yours, that this as a project that was designated quasi public, because it already existed, that's what it was, and it was easy in the Comprehensive Plan process to say that's what it is. A church is quasi public. As a manual for the guidance in our decisions, the Comprehensive Plan is really more focused at the new development, rather than changing an old process, and I understand they are constricted to go by what they feel the letter of the Comprehensive Plan is in deciding whether it would comply with it or not. I'm not saying they did the wrong thing in making that decision, I'm saying I'm ready to take the other tack, so they certainly interpreted it in a correct way. I wouldn't argue with that, but I think the alternate -- which is why we are eventually going to ask them to make up some rules for approving it. I'm not disagreeing with the decision they made I'm just saying there is an alternate decision. McKinnon: Okay. I've had some more discussions with Craig about a couple of other items, but it sounds like the direction that we are going tonight is to see what all those are and how they are written out and I guess I would like the opportunity to see what those are written out from Craig as well and review those and review those with -- with the developer and make sure that he's okay with those conditions as well. So, that's something that I can understand tonight. But if there is any way possible, we would like to move forward tonight with -- whether or not it's a recommendation of approval for the preliminary plat and tabling the Conditional Use Permit portion of that and, then, holding those together until they get to the Council. With that I guess I would just end that we think we have, actually, tried to work within the confines of the zoning ordinance itself, we have tried to work with the planned development ordinance to create something that's a little bit different than what we typically see in an office park, especially something that's surrounded by residential on all sides. We did have a neighbor meeting, we met with the neighbors, and after we met with the neighbors we took their considerations into concern and wrote a letter back in response and we did not hear Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 42 of 87 anything back from the neighbors after that letter. I don't know if they are in attendance tonight, but we have had the opportunity to meet with the neighbors and try to discuss things with the neighbors and ask if you have any questions and I can end my testimony. Borup: Did you have any comments from any of the neighbors that -- McKinnon: We did. We had a number of comments that -- Borup: I mean pertinent ones that we would be interested in? McKinnon: They wanted us to build a masonry wall around the entire outside edge of the project and we felt that that was a little onerous for a small two-acre project. They felt that the air conditional units would create a large amount of noise, but we are dealing with small office projects that would be on timers, so that the air conditioning wouldn't be on at night and the air conditioning units would be on at the same time as the housing units surrounding them. One of the other major issues they had was the fact that they would lose their view and they felt that they would lose their view of the parking lot, because there would now be buildings in the way and that was something that we didn't know how to respond to that, so we left that as something unresponsive. The other issue had to deal with the water pressure and the subdivision has got a rather clever name, it's called One Sub, so it's One Sub One and One Sub Two, One Sub Three, all the phases, and this project, when it was constructed, it did not have any pressurized irrigation to it. So all the houses are on one inch lines, I believe a three- quarter inch meter and so at the meeting they were concerned that we would take away water pressure and the water pressure is not a problem within the main itself, it's once it gets to that one inch line, if the sprinklers are on, they can't take a shower, because they don't have enough water pressure and it's the amount of water that comes through the line off the main and in talking with Bruce over at the -- Bruce Stewart at Public Works and he said that this would not decrease the water pressure in their neighborhood. It's not a problem with the main line not having enough pressure, it's the water coming off of the main line through their small connections and so I wrote a letter back to them concerning that. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Let me ask a question on the air conditioners. Wouldn't they typically be on the roof of these buildings? McKinnon: No. They would be in the back. Zaremba: So, they would be ground level? McKinnon: Ground level. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 43 of 87 Zaremba: Okay. Can they be screened in some way? I mean not building a whole block wall across the back of the property, but can the individual air conditioners be screened? McKinnon: There is some screening in effect. You can see along the northern property line that there are a number of trees on the northern property line. In addition to that, there is a separation, plus a six foot cedar fence that's currently located surrounding the homes and so that does provide some shielding from the noise. Borup: Did we get any new elevation designs for these -- McKinnon: There was some confusion there. When the packet was submitted, we took some pictures of some existing buildings, so these are typical of what we are going to build on this site and they will be gabled structures and it would look similar to, you know, the ones that we propose. The confusion was the fact that there is not a -- the pictures that we took showed parking in front -- Borup: Right, but I think the comment was still pertinent, that you're emphasizing the pedestrian friendly and et cetera, so I'm assuming that the facades would need to be -- McKinnon: Pedestrian friendly as well. Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: The concern is that it doesn't look like the back of a building. McKinnon: Doesn't look like the back of the building. Exactly. Zaremba: Technically, it is the back of the building. McKinnon: It, technically, would be the back of the building, but it would -- Borup: In this case it could be a side design. But still -- McKinnon: As far as additional facades, to be honest with you, there is not many projects in Boise or the Meridian area that have the buildings brought up to the street front like this and they -- Borup: Old Town. McKinnon: Old Town has some and you guys know what the Old Town buildings look like. They typically look as though they are fronting onto the street, even though they are entered from the back. We can provide some additional photos, if we are going to be continuing this, that we can show you what that would look like. I might be able to find some or a side building that was brought closer without parking in front. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 44 of 87 Zaremba: Okay. Borup: And I don't remember if there were any other issues, any other staff comments that haven't been addressed, are there? Staff talked about additional plant material along the two boundaries. Did the -- McKinnon: The additional plant material was along the northern boundary. Borup: Well, yeah, you mentioned about the sewer line problem, but -- McKinnon: And we can -- we can meet the landscape ordinance with planting the trees back here. There are a number of trees that currently are back there right now and additional trees would provide more buffer. Borup: Okay. I'm looking at the staff comments. So, you're saying that their -- the current plan did not meet -- did not meet the landscape ordinance, is that correct? And that's why additional -- McKinnon: I'd have to lean back on Craig on that one. Borup: That looks like the way it's written, Craig, is that you need additional just to meet the -- Hood: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what page you're on, but I believe -- Borup: I'm on four, under B, last sentence in that paragraph. Hood: That was the intent, I guess. Or, myself, I wasn't aware that that sewer line was going to be running back in, so trees would be a problem there, but additional plant material per that code, which requires a little bit more landscape buffering than the one per 35 -- Borup: Right. But something could be done along here and maybe taller shrubbery type stuff, rather than trees may be more appropriate. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just a couple thoughts on that. It's a very narrow stretch of land that's through here and, then, you have got a six-foot -- you got pictures of it? Hood: I do. McKinnon: All right. Right there. If you were to plant -- we have a six-foot fence and, then, we also have the church building right there and, typically, a tree, once it grows to a mature height and width, a tree is not going to sit back in that area. The idea of the taller shrubs that you addressed, typically, the shrubs, as they grow, are not going to Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 45 of 87 exceed the six foot fence by such a degree that they would provide a great deal of buffer from the church building itself. Borup: Did those neighbors along that side have any concern on -- McKinnon: At the meeting there wasn't a great deal of concern discussed about the current church building itself. Borup: Okay. They are more worried -- they were more about the new buildings, then. McKinnon: But the addition of some shrubbery back there -- I don't know what visual appeal it would have, other than to have some knobs above the fence for the back neighbors. As far as providing an additional streetscape for that, it's others very hard to see landscaping between the building and the fence when you're traveling 35 miles an hour on Cherry. Borup: Well, no, it would be for the neighbors, not for driving by. Are there doors or access points off the back of the building along there? McKinnon: I believe that the sidewalk runs right to that door. Borup: That's it? The rest of it -- McKinnon: It goes into the chapel pews, I believe. There may be one service door towards the very end for the existing mechanical structures. Borup: That's what I was wondering. Would you even have anybody be accessing that area? If not, it doesn't matter if a shrub covers the whole -- takes up the whole place. McKinnon: There is just the one door. Borup: Okay. Well, that's probably more time than we need to spend on that, but -- I mean there is some shrubs that can get ten feet tall in not that many years. Rohm: Who is going to see them? Borup: The neighbors. Rohm: They'd have to get up over the fence to see them. Borup: Well, not to see over. It's not -- not a ten foot one you don't. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Borup: Yeah. That's the only -- that's the only thought that the neighbors -- yeah. From Cherry Lane it's not a factor. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 46 of 87 McKinnon: Okay. Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I guess I'm having a hard time seeing the -- with the existing building there, not having any -- any testimony offered as of yet for additional landscaping in that area -- I mean they have lived with the building in that area for a number of years. Borup: I'm okay with that. I don't think there was anything else -- any other items, then. You already addressed the parking lot. I don't think I have anything else. Now, at this point you had said you'd like to see us -- McKinnon: I guess my comment to see if you can make some sort of motion with this is I guess if I had some understanding from the Commission as to -- Borup: And I think that may be more appropriate as an understanding. We have done that before, because of the -- and you understand better than me, I think, probably, on the -- once we make a recommendation, that the time constraints we have that it needs to get to City Council could be a problem. We can't just sit on it for that time. So, we have done that before, we have closed -- we have closed the hearing, we have discussed what our proposed recommendation would be, and, then, waited until the following meeting and actually made that motion. I don't remember what project it was, but I remember we did that not that many months ago, I don't think. You don't remember? Zaremba: I remember there was a reason for doing something and -- Borup: It was kind of similar to this, where we had a second -- the second part of it -- I think we just didn't want to rehash everything again, because we were satisfied with -- and it probably was the annexation part, I'm assuming. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: I don't know if it matters, but we did that -- Powell: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I think that was fairly recently and I think that -- Borup: It was this year. Powell: And it probably -- you can always have discussion. There is nothing to prevent you from having discussion, so if you want to close the Public Hearing and, then, have discussion and, then, table it to -- well, maybe if you're tabling it, maybe -- no, you don't have -- you can close the Public Hearing and still table it if you want to, for just making a finding once you get it, but, then, that prevents you from discussing the recommended conditions of approval with the applicant, so you probably want to leave it open. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 47 of 87 Zaremba: My inclination would be, one, to leave it open and, two, to continue both hearings -- City Council, I'm sure, would rather have them both come to them at the same time. Borup: Well, yeah, we need to do that. Zaremba: And even though I think we clearly have made a decision on one of them and just want a little bit more information on the other one, I would treat them equally, rather than pass one and sit on it. Borup: I don't think we want to sit on it. All we could do is express our opinion. Powell: Chairman Borup, before you get on to making motions, I did -- a couple things came up with the applicant's testimony that I just wanted to clarify. Borup: Okay. Powell: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is the first finding required for the preliminary plat, so I'm not saying that you can't make that finding at all, I just wanted to let the record reflect that that is a required finding and also that one of the uses that the applicant carefully avoided on the quasi public is health care facilities, which we suggested as the very first pre-app would be appropriate for medical offices to be in these office uses, that as staff, even, we could make that consistency statement. So, I just -- a little omission on the part of the applicant there, so -- McKinnon: Anna gives way too much credit. There wasn't any attempt to try to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. In fact, the nursing home itself is one of the medical cares and I wanted to emphasize the fact that the one use that we are using for the existing building is something that complies with the Comprehensive Plan, because we are asking for the nursing home and staff has stated in the staff report that the nursing home would comply with the Comprehensive Plan, because it is a medical care facility. So, she's giving me a little too much credit for trying to strategize that. Powell: The only other thing that was unclear on the applicant's statement -- with the neo -- staff's concern with the elevation and the photo that was provided was not the architectural look, it's just we wanted to make sure that the applicant understood that, as staff, if that goes forward with your recommendation for approval, we are going to look to that actually being the entrance, not just looking like an entrance. That was the only concern. I mean it needs to -- to be an entrance to the facility to really provide that neo-traditional feel. If it's just a blank door facade that says employees only, that's very different from actually having an entrance there. It's not to say you couldn't have an entrance from the other side, but in -- given the size of those buildings, I doubt it's going to happen and that's why staff brought it up as a concern. Borup: I need some clarification, then. You're saying you want that -- you would expect the entrance to be from Cherry Lane? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 48 of 87 Powell: If, as the -- what the applicant has suggested is that in cases where it's a neo- traditional look or feel, that it's appropriate to reduce the front buffer, because you're bringing that entrance closer to the people. You're drawing them in from the street. But he's claimed that it's appropriate to reduce the buffer for that very reason, and then, to not have an entrance there, it just -- you can still make that finding if you want to, to just have a reduced buffer, because it should be a reduced buffer, but to make it on the statement that it's for this neo-traditional look or feel, then, there does need to be an actual entrance there, a public entrance and a welcoming entrance, not just the back door. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission -- Borup: Comments on that? McKinnon: Yeah. Craig, could you scroll back to the site plan real quick. The plat map. Okay. We have got two buildings that we are asking for reduced setback on. It's this building and this building right here. As far as having to have the entrance at this site and having an entrance at this location, it doesn't necessarily make sense. There is not going to be a great amount of traffic generated from the pedestrians. It's an opportunity for pedestrian traffic. In order to create the opportunity for pedestrian traffic, we have provided sidewalks that would lead from the sidewalk itself to the entrances, rather than have the buildings across the back where people could come across the sidewalk with no -- if you put a standard design, what you would do is place the buildings at the very back of the lot and, then, you place your parking -- double load your parking, so you have parking on the north side and on the south side and you'd have your large landscaping buffer right here. For pedestrians to access those buildings, they would have to walk along this sidewalk and, then, cross over the landscaping, across along one of the driveways without a sidewalk back to these buildings going through the lanes of traffic and through the parking lot. The idea of having new urbanism is two fold. One, it's for the appearance as driving down the street, it softens the scape, it creates a sense of space and livability, rather than creating landscaping, parking, building, you create building, something that can be attractive, with the landscaping. The second thing for us to increase pedestrian access and by adding sidewalks leading to these building entrances -- if it's a recommendation or requirement to do this, that is something that we can work out and see if it's something that makes sense to the developer, but that's a site specific requirement to have a door in this, that's something we'd like to review, but the idea is to create pedestrian access to these buildings, rather than force them through the parking lot and across landscaping to get to the building. Borup: Anna, I assume you're referring to their comments on that quote -- or on that comment about the urbanism? Powell: I'm sorry, could you ask the question -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 49 of 87 Borup: You were referring to their letter and their comment about the new urbanism. Is that what you were referring to? Powell: Right. Borup: Okay. That's what I just wanted to clarify, because I was reading that here. McKinnon: Okay. Borup: And, Dave, it sounds like you're saying -- and from -- I don't know if the other -- other Commissioners, it's the Pinnacle Engineer responses right after the page after the staff comments is, I think, what we are referring to. It sounds like you're saying that the pedestrian traffic would be encouraged by the visual appeal of the building, not necessarily that it's got a pedestrian entrance into the -- McKinnon: Well, it's two fold. You're walking along the highway and you -- major arterial and you see a mall behind a large sea of parking, you're not typically going to say this is a great place for me to walk all the way through the parking lot to the mall, but if you bring the building closer to the street, the person on the sidewalk can access that. In addition to that, besides just the pedestrian friendliness of it, you could have a softer street scape where you don't have this large separation from the buildings from the street, you, actually, bring those buildings closer to the street and it becomes a better appearance. It's the difference between driving down Fairview and having all the buildings set back with the parking and what we have in Old Town Meridian, where we have the building brought down -- Borup: No. I understand. I was interested in Anna's comment about the pedestrian -- but I don't -- unless it was somewhere else, I don't see where you stated it quite that same way, but it's saying that it can-- visually can encourage pedestrian traffic, not necessarily have the front door access like -- Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, the alternative -- the request you're considering is should there be a 25 foot landscape buffer with heavily vegetated that would be a pedestrian amenity along this arterial is what has been determined through the zoning ordinance process and through the Comp Plan process. Or should you consider a lesser landscape in exchange for bringing these buildings forward that are welcoming the street and as he described, the traditional thing would be to put the buildings in the back, in which case they'd probably get the three buildings they have got, and put the parking double loaded on either side and have the landscape buffer. So, this -- in this scenario they are gaining more room for two additional buildings in exchange for welcoming the street with this entrance and I'm not sure that we are going to see this welcoming the street part. I just -- and I don't think that the comments about the plazas not being appropriate for this area, I don't think was quite what staff was trying to get at, it was a question of whether the amenities provided by this PD are commensurate with the exceptions you're asking and they are asking for quite a few exceptions. There is the existing -- the existing parking lot and setbacks that are Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 50 of 87 existing and, then, further reductions in what -- or reductions in what's required on new development as well and I think that that was staff's concerns with the density of this development and the proposals they were making and the reductions they were asking for. Borup: I don't remember seeing a review of the parking. Powell: Well, I know he did, because -- especially on the existing parking where it's -- Borup: And we have plenty of parking on the proposed -- we are okay there. Commissioner? Zaremba: My thought on the landscape buffer -- I agree that it's an entry corridor we want to stick with the 25 feet wherever we can. What made me comfortable with reduced is -- and I may or may not be right and either the applicant Mr. McKinnon or staff -- to either side of this project, I think we have a sidewalk and, then, a small landscape buffer and, then, the back fence of residences and my question is how deep is the existing landscape buffer on the adjoining properties? Both sides I think are this - - pretty much the same thing. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, Members of the staff, Craig could you address that in the staff report and they are between seven and eight feet in width on either side to the west and to the east of the residential property. Zaremba: So, 15 feet is even greater than the two side properties. I even think that the 25-foot landscape buffer would look funny there. McKinnon: If I can add just one additional thing. This landscape -- if you can go back to those pictures, Craig. Yeah. You can see that the buffer width is currently, you know, eight to ten feet and it's the same as you see on either side and that's going to be doubled before you get to your first building, and so what you see right now is actually going to be approximately double that right now in width and so that should be double what you see on both sides of this project. Borup: From my standpoint, probably the big -- one of the big factors for me is going to be the architectural design of those buildings and -- Zaremba: What's it going to look like facing the street? Borup: Yeah. Because I -- that holds a lot of weight to me. You can have some very attractive facades there and I don't know that -- I would like to see something. Not a plan, I don't think we need a plan, necessarily, and I don't know if you're going to find it in photographs of existing buildings. You might. But, you know, a rough architectural sketch. McKinnon: We could provide that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 51 of 87 Borup: You know, just a -- even just a free-hand type sketch or something would mean something to me. McKinnon: We will get that for you. Borup: And then -- yes. I mean that makes a lot of sense. That, with the reduced and especially since it's going to be double what it is on either side, I think it would take most things on a -- sometimes on a case-by-case basis if it does tie in with the rest of the neighborhood. Okay. Have we discussed all this enough? Rohm: I think so. Borup: I think -- I don't know that there is any -- anybody has any problem at all with the annexation? McKinnon: The annexation? Borup: I mean the preliminary plat is what I meant to say. Zaremba: No. The only thing I would want to do is keep the two of them in the same part of the process. Borup: And do we want to keep the public hearing open on the first? Zaremba: Have we asked if there is anybody to -- McKinnon: There might be somebody -- Borup: No, I haven't. I'm sorry. I'm making an assumption. But do we have anyone here to testify on this? Okay. Please. Sorry about that. Thank you, Commissioner. McKibben: Chairman and Commissioners, I'm Sherry McKibben, architect and urban designer, new urbanism, and I reside at 515 West Hays in Boise. I did want to comment on the complexity of new urbanism and it is primarily a configurational thing when you get down to the physical environment and design matters. The intention is to create from the street, which is ideally a multi-modal conveyance, a presence for all those modes of transportation and to make the pedestrian and the cyclist feel comfortable on that street and I noticed, Commissioner Zaremba, that you considered this a gateway corridor. Very important, I think, for your community to have, you know, something that is conducive to pedestrian activity, as well as something that represents your community. So, I think that those buildings moving up close to the street is important, but I also agree that an entrance and windows on those facades is also very important. I do appreciate that the parking is primarily at the back and that is important and I certainly understand that the existing parking lot and the church building be Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 52 of 87 reused is also important. That's a sustainable thing to do, reuse the building. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. It sounds like we want to just continue both -- Zaremba: Yeah. I would -- Borup: Craig, is two weeks enough? Zaremba: I would second that in saying that if we ever do have a transit system, it would be nice to have an entryway closer to the street. Mr. McKinnon said he was not envisioning an entrance on that side of the building, but -- unless the entryway -- he did say there would be walkways along the building to get to the entryway. But we may at some point have transit and I could see a stop being right in front of the building and people needing to get in, so -- whether or not there is an entrance facing the street needs some further discussion, I think, but I would recommend they talk to staff more about that. Borup: That wasn't a big factor for me if it's obvious that there is an entrance right there on the side and the building is right there, so they know they got to walk another ten feet. Zaremba: If the pathway steers you toward it, I wouldn't have a problem with that, either. Rohm: I do like the idea of putting windows or something along that -- Borup: Dormers or, you know, pop-outs, whatever -- whatever -- and that's not up to us to design, but that type of thing. McKinnon: Mr. Chairman, just a couple things. Not necessarily rebuttal, just for some clarification. We have got this project in front of you tonight and I guess we'd just like to see if we can figure out a time that would be appropriate for staff to be able to get these comments to us, so that we would have the time to review that. Borup: Okay. That's what I was just going to ask. Is two weeks you feel enough time -- if we continue this to the next meeting. Hood: I'm wondering about the Clerk, if I get you -- when would that be. Zaremba: Monday is ten days before the next meeting. Hood: Yeah. That doesn't seem to be enough time for me tomorrow to put something together and have the applicant come up with a drawing I think that we could, you know, look at the possible elevations for those buildings there adjacent to Cherry Lane. I know that pushes us back a month to the first on in December. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 53 of 87 Borup: So who needs the ten days? Hood: Any revised -- Borup: Well, right. The only thing -- the only thing they would be bringing back to staff would be some designs, right? As far as any -- Hood: Depending on the motion, yes. I mean that -- I think the building elevations have been the main -- the main issue. Borup: And do you need ten days to review those? Hood: Oh, no. No. Just ten days to get copies out to anyone else that may -- that's what I'm trying to think about that may have an interest in this. It is primarily a city issue and a revised staff report, that's the other thing that I'm concerned about. I do have -- like I said earlier, I do have some notes and a rough draft of -- if you were going towards approval, but I just -- I don't know what else may come up -- two weeks -- I mean in two weeks, the next meeting, I should be able to get something probably to the Clerk I would hope. Borup: Okay. Then, Mr. McKinnon, you realize -- if that's -- if we did it in two weeks, the time that you would have to review the staff comment would probably be very short. McKinnon: That's fine. Borup: Or we could make it the next meeting and give you more time. McKinnon: Two weeks will give me enough time. Borup: Well, you wouldn't have two weeks. You wouldn't have two weeks. You may have one day. We have seen that a lot in the past. McKinnon: As long as I got it the day before, I can do that. Borup: So, that sounds all right? Rohm: And I'd just comment to that, Dave, if, in fact, you have exceptions to any of their conclusions, that you have that well prepared, so that we can look at your responses at the same time, because when we don't have that, it just adds confusion to the issue. McKinnon: Understood. Borup: And others have brought it in writing and handed it out and that makes it real easy to incorporate if we felt appropriate. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 54 of 87 Zaremba: Similar to what they did this time, but just response to a new report. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That being the case, I -- Borup: So -- but would we be asking staff to prepare a staff report for approval? Is that -- Rohm: Yes, I believe so. Zaremba: If we chose to approve it, I'd like to know what their issues are that need to be resolved. Borup: I mean right now they have -- Zaremba: Including the quasi-public issue, which, you know, I think it can be interpreted either way and I'm choosing to interpret it the alternate way. Borup: It sounds like we are saying -- you're not telling staff necessarily to prepare a report for approval, but that we would ignore the Comprehensive Plan conflict. I don't know if there is any other conflict you felt, other than that. Hood: As it was brought earlier by the applicant. I mean they are design issues that -- Borup: Right. Those things would still be appropriate and we'd like to still address those. Is that correct? Zaremba: That's the direction I would go. Rohm: Yes. I concur with that. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: That being the case, I would move that we continue both Public Hearings PP 03-029 and CUP 03-048 to our meeting of -- must be the 20th, November 20th. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: We do have a fairly full agenda on the 20th, so we'll have to kind of hopefully move things along when we get to that. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 55 of 87 Zaremba: I suspect we have discussed things thoroughly enough that -- Rohm: But we do want Dave to be at the very end for sure. Zaremba: I move that he be the last item on the -- I'm pretty sure the issues are clear enough that we should go through it quickly. Borup: Actually, it may not be that bad. There is a lot of items, but four of them are on one project, you know, and the -- you know, it's multiple things on the same project, so - - Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 03-025 Request for annexation and zoning of 57.84 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Blue Marlin by W. H. Moore Company – northwest corner of East Ustick Road and North Eagle Road: Borup: All right. Item number nine. We have received -- somewhere we have received a written request to have this item continued to January. Zaremba: And open the Public Hearing to do that or -- entertain it without -- Borup: Well, no, we -- Zaremba: Otherwise, it becomes a notice issue. Borup: Right. So, I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-025, request for annexation and zoning of 57 -- Gabbert: Chairman Borup? Over here. Borup: Oh. Sorry, Chris. Gabbert: That's all right. If you want to table that, then, it would require new motions -- I'm sorry, new notices made -- Borup: Right. Gabbert: -- for January. If you open it, then, you will need to continue it. So, that's the technical difference. I realize you guys were discussing that at the last -- two weeks ago and whatnot. So, if you open it, you table it, and -- Borup: No. If we open it, we continue it. If we don't open it, we table it. Gabbert: Thank you. Borup: But tabling it would require new notification, is that what you're saying? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 56 of 87 Gabbert: Yeah. Correct. Borup: Yeah. I think we finally figured that out last -- Gabbert: I looked it up, so -- Zaremba: We have been through that a couple times. Borup: Yeah. We did have a question. Okay. I have opened the Public Hearing. I don't think staff has anything that you wanted to comment on. Commissioners, motion? Zaremba: Nobody here to testify on that item. Mr. Chairman, I move we continue AZ 03-025 to our meeting of January -- I believe it was the 15th, 2004. I'm seeing head nods confirming that date, so that's my motion. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? A question I have is what's supposed to happen by then? I mean the -- you know, I thought maybe they just wanted to work on their design, but from what was said earlier, they are not sure if they even want to go the direction that staff has been talking about? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Chairman Borup, members of the Commission, I did talk with Jonathan Seal, who is representing W.H. Moore Company just yesterday, he's the one that turned in the letter to the city on the company's behalf and after reading staff's recommendation to have this be a true mixed use project and potentially include some residential in there, they had grave concerns about that, to the degree that they wanted to have more in-depth discussions with staff about -- about particularly the residential component. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: As I think his letter said, it's a 60 million plus investment and they are not prepared to go into a public hearing setting until some more information is given to them about staff's perceptions and views of the mixed use regional designation of the Comp Plan. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: So -- Borup: So, we may not have anything in January, but at least a direction should be decided on, hopefully. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 57 of 87 Rohm: And I would like to say, though, that if, in fact, we don't come to resolve in January, it would probably behoove us to table it at that point and they will renotice it to come before -- as in we wouldn't continue it once again and so -- Zaremba: I would agree with that. Rohm: That seems appropriate. Borup: I think it probably is. I can remember back five years ago there was one project that was continued for like a year and a half almost or something. It just kept getting continued every couple months each time and that got a little ridiculous. Rohm: Well -- and I think that as a project changes, if it changes substantially it may be advantageous to renotice it and so -- I don't think there is anything wrong with continuing it this once, but beyond that I think it would be appropriate to just table it. Zaremba: While we are in discussion, there are actually two things I would ask. This -- this is a request only for annexation and I think we are having this discussion, because it is not accompanied with any kind of a concept drawing, which up until the project across Ustick from this, has been a requirement and we kind of waived it for that one, because they didn't want to cooperate and provide one -- Borup: And I think as mentioned in the staff comments -- Zaremba: But how a slippery a slope are we going down by we will consider it without a concept drawing. Borup: Yeah, and part of the reason on the other one there was multiple property owners, where this one it's, really, all one developer -- I mean two properties, but he's in control of -- of the whole project, which means it's a lot more appropriate to have a concept. Zaremba: Well -- and to me having the concept helps us decide whether the zone that they are asking for is the right thing or not. I meaning if we are going to zone something -- annex it and zone it, we need some idea whether -- or at least staff needs some idea whether the requested zoning has any validity. I mean not just because the Comprehensive Plan has something, but -- is staff -- how comfortable are you with not having a concept plan? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. I guess, first of all, since the applicant isn't here, I just am hesitant to talk too much about their project, but, in general, yeah, we -- you know, the ordinance says you can apply for annexation and it doesn't say you have to submit a concept plan, so we don't have the ability at staff level to actually not accept an annexation application. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 58 of 87 Zaremba: But the process has always included -- Hawkins-Clark: And we certainly have encouraged strongly at the pre-application meeting, that that occur. As Mr. Strite, who is in the audience, can testify on the Kissler property. But that being said, yeah, we have no ability to not accept the application if want to move ahead, particularly when there is a development agreement that's in the process. Zaremba: Okay. My second question is sort of unrelated to that, but my recollection is that the project just to the west of the project that we are talking about here, didn't they include some storage units that the intention was to be the buffer between residential and non-residential? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, they did. Zaremba: So, in approving that one, everybody's concept was there that would not be any residential in the one we are talking about today. Is that true? Borup: I think that's a logical conclusion from what went on before. Zaremba: Yeah. Because they were preparing the buffer for this not to have any residential. Just a thought. Borup: That was based on the -- Zaremba: On the old Comprehensive Plan, I guess, but -- Borup: No, the current Comprehensive Plan. Okay. We had a motion and second. That was a long discussion. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 03-049 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an Emissions Testing Center in a C-C zone for Hark’s Corner Emission Center by L&J Capital Ventures, LLC – 1651 West Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. I guess we could go ahead. Next Item, Public Hearing CUP 03-049, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an emissions testing center in a C-C zone for Hark's Corner Emission Center by L&J Capital Ventures at 1651 West Franklin. I'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, this is an application for a Conditional Use Permit for an emissions testing center. This application is here tonight because it's been deemed to be quasi-public use, which requires a Conditional Use Permit. That's why I think this is one of the first times we are seeing an emissions testing center as a Conditional Use Permit. The subject property is located at the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 59 of 87 southwest intersection of Franklin and Linder Road at the preexisting Hark's Corner Shopping Center and here we have an aerial. Let' see. This is a site plan. It's, actually, kind of difficult to see. The northeast corner of the subject property, the application proposed to place a structure which in the application they said it would be a six-by-eight foot wood frame building for an emissions testing center and I want to have the applicant clarify what size building they actually have constructed and, let's see, I wanted to -- probably go through some -- we should at least have some discussion about the -- the applicant has already constructed the building and has already started to operate the emissions testing center. So, they will address that this evening. I just wanted to let you know that that has happened and we have two -- I think you have a copy of this in your packet. What the applicant originally proposed and what I wrote my staff report on was a larger structure that had curbing around it and they had some landscaping and what's actually been constructed is a smaller -- a smaller wood shed, it doesn't have landscaping around it, it doesn't have curbing. So, my recommendation as staff, after seeing what's actually been constructed, would be for you all to think about doing condition of approval requiring them to submit a landscaping plan showing some initial landscaping and some curbing, just to kind of bring the structure to a higher standard. It meets the setbacks. We don't have any criteria that's strictly would address this or require additional landscaping. I just think it would make the site look a lot nicer. It's on a very visible corner here in Meridian at Hark's Corner, and the applicant will address that. They had some concern over losing some parking spots if they were to expand the landscaping and the curbing. So, they can go through that with you. But staff recommends approval of the application. It's definitely a suitable use for the area and compatible with the existing uses at Hark's Corner. We'd just like to see the structure improved a little bit with the landscaping, and do you have any questions of staff? Zaremba: And it -- you touched on it and it applies to this project and a whole bunch of others that I see around. There is a certain parking requirement -- parking space requirement that's related to the building or whatever operation is going on there. You say, okay, so many square feet or a certain kind of use you need this much parking. And, then, we put something in some of those parking spaces that is something other than cars parking there -- in this case we are talking about emissions testing and I think that's an appropriate corner to have one on, so that's not a problem for me, but other places I see them they set up a tent and put all their wares for sale out there and it stays there and stays there and stays there. Do we go around and say, well, now, wait a minute, this parking space has to do available for cars or you have to prove that you have otherwise enough -- that this is being taken in a surplus parking space. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, I don't know previously how those emissions stands were permitted in Meridian, I know when I looked at this application, I made sure that they had enough parking -- they actually had a surplus of parking before I permitted them -- before I wrote my approval for them to put this building in and use up some parking spaces. Zaremba: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 60 of 87 Kirkpatrick: So, they have adequate parking for this. Zaremba: In this case. Kirkpatrick: And in the future when all of these emission-testing centers come in for permits, we will be doing the same evaluation. Borup: The only question I had -- and back to your comment on landscaping around this, the plans we have submitted shows some pretty extensive landscaping along the street buffer. I don't see it in the photograph. Because they are not mature yet or was that landscaping ever completed? Kirkpatrick: No, actually what was proposed -- I believe the applicant explained to me, it was a different bed -- Borup: Well, no, I understand that. My question is more on the overall site. Kirkpatrick: Some of that landscaping was a part of Hark's Corner two and they haven't -- I think they are just starting construction now, so they won't be required to put up landscaping in the -- Borup: But I'm looking at the landscaping that's shown on this site plan right behind the building and it's showing three trees along there with some extensive stuff on -- extensive landscaping on the corner. There we go. Kirkpatrick: Well, you can see this is an aerial and I'm not sure -- I'm not certain of the date of when this aerial was -- when this aerial was flown. Borup: It doesn't seem to be the same as what -- the landscaping plan. Kirkpatrick: To answer your question, they should not be signed off on occupation for these buildings until the landscaping has been -- and I don't know -- and I don't know if they have bonded for that landscaping. It hasn't been put in. That's a possibility. Or if that's a part of Hark's Corner two and they haven't been required to put it in, because that hasn't been constructed yet. Borup: Okay, and the reason I brought that up was your comment that is a visible corner and landscaped around it, it looked like, you know, the landscaping on the street scape should already have been taken care of. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, for instance, mentioning to you that there is a long history, I guess, which I'm not privy of -- concerning the landscaping on this project and the applicant can talk about that. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 61 of 87 Kirkpatrick: And if it's something you need to have researched, I can come back and let you know. Borup: Okay. That might be -- unless the Commissioners have anything else, let's go ahead and see if the applicant would like to make their presentation. Hall: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners, Jeffrey Hall, 1651 West Franklin Road. Good to see you guys again. We will definitely touch on the landscaping. Sorry Larry couldn't be with us tonight, but least you won't have to wear earplugs, so that's good. The first thing is we have received several requests from the public to have an emissions testing center and the next thing you know we received several requests from emissions testers to put one of those ugly little red vans on our property and we decided, no, that's not us. We have a classy act out there and we want to keep it a class act. One of the first pictures that we saw -- if you can go back to the first bid, we actually had a customer bring this to us and it was a huge building and had some landscaping around it and everything else and he's never even done one of these, but we thought it was a pretty nice picture, so we actually submitted that with our CUP app and I will get into the history of all of that and everything. But we finally decided we are going to do this ourselves and we are going to make it a class act and it's going to look nice. What we did is we decided to construct a six-by-eight building, which is that building right there, and we had purchased the equipment for this, which is about 20,000 dollars, and, as you know, Larry and I, sometimes we put wagon before the horse and -- not that it happens all the time, but we went ahead and decided to go ahead and get this going and get the ball rolling. With all previous emission testing centers, vans or otherwise, in the City of Meridian they have always had to have a CZC, we just go take it into staff, sign off on it, bang, it's done. So, we went in to do that and under the new P and Z administration Anna said, no, this is -- here we go with the quasi public thing you guys heard a little bit about tonight and we are going to do the CUP process on this one, so we are the first guys to do this and that's okay, we don't mind, we are just -- we go with the flow. Kind of like the landscaping with the trees, if you remember that whole ordeal. I don't know. So, anyhow, we went ahead and got the CUP going and they were advised at that time that the ball was rolling and we were told that since the ball is rolling, we are going to give some special circumstances here and you guys, you know -- if you guys put up the building and get it operating right now, you guys are risking getting a letter from us, but you guys will be going in front of the Commission anyways and you guys will be able to get everything legalized, so that's what we are doing here. The six-by-eight building that we constructed is not in a parking spot, it is -- and, also, keep in mind the parking spots that you see there are not required parking spot, they are RV spots that we put in ourselves. They are something that we wanted to -- so the trucks can come in at lunchtime with the trailers, the school buses, which we are going to have 240 of them across the street pretty soon, that type of thing, that's their parking. We put this six-by-eight building -- the reason we had to make it so much smaller than the original picture you saw, is because we did not want to take up any of those RV spaces. In addition, the other reason we don't have landscaping around it is because the equipment that comes out of those -- you have Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 62 of 87 had an emissions test, unless you live in Kuna or somewhere else, I guess. They have about a ten foot cord that goes to your vehicle, it either goes into your computer or goes in the back of your tail pipe and I'm not really one of these guys that know much about this, but I do know that they are about ten feet and if we had a landscape buffer around the building right there, we would be kind of messed up. The car would have to be so far away and it wouldn't have a chance to be able to put the equipment into it. So, that's why we do not have any landscape around it. Plus, we do have our existing landscape buffer that is between the building and Linder Road. It is totally landscaped now. It has been since day one and -- Borup: The site plan shows three trees right to the east of the -- Hall: Oh, yeah, we have -- Borup: Are they all there? Hall: Yeah. Borup: Okay. They just don't show on this -- Hall: Whenever that picture was taken they didn't have leaves on them or something, because those are the trees that we replaced with those -- the evergreen thing issue. Borup: Oh, that's right. Hall: Yeah. So, anyhow, we have replaced those evergreens with some beautiful nice flowering trees. So, we got that going. Everything is all good there. So, it is beautifully landscaped on the one side of the building and there is not any other emissions testing center that I know that has -- especially the vans, that have any landscaping around them. I mean -- and it's not required for us and yeah, it is pretty. I got to agree it would be beautiful, but, unfortunately, it just wouldn't be consistent with our use. Borup: So, why did you submit the first plan with landscaping around it? Hall: Well, we were kind of in a rush, to be honest with you, but, then, we submitted this new picture, because Wendy said, Jeffrey, you probably need to submit something different. So, we did submit the updated picture -- the revised picture of what it's going to look like. Borup: But I thought the other one wasn't an actual, it was a composite picture that -- Hall: It was. That one was just a composite thing of what it would look like. Actually, the gentleman that did that for us did it up real quick and he brought it to us and we put it in with the CUP app, because we only had a couple days to get the CUP app in, in order to expedite this process. So, that's where we are at there. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 63 of 87 Borup: But that one -- was the hose going to be in the way of that one? Hall: Was the what now? Borup: You said the hose would cause problems with the landscaping, but you got it drawn in this picture. Hall: The hose? Zaremba: Wouldn't be long enough. Hall: Yeah. The hose wouldn't be long enough. There is -- I don't know of any hose that's in that picture. Borup: Yeah. Well, why was it designed that way, then? Hall: Well, because that gentlemen didn't ever run an emission test and -- Borup: Okay. Hall: -- I don't think he knew what he was doing. He definitely wanted to do one, but I -- unfortunately, he's never done one and we learned a lot -- Larry and I learned a lot about this, too. We never thought we would be in the emission testing business either, so -- and we did do the prefab building, six by eight. It's beautiful it matches the colors of our current Shell station and our current building. We even -- I mean we got the same paint colors, everything to the T. There is a comment from the Fire Department requesting compliance by providing street numbers and a fire extinguisher in the building, we have complied with that, and you now have a fax in front of you, which -- from the Fire Department today, which shows that we have complied with that. So, that was the comment we had there. Otherwise, that's all I have for you, if you have any other questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I think you answered the question I was going to have. This appears to be a black and white building on this black and white picture. Hall: It's yellow, red, and white. Just like Shell. Zaremba: But the question I was going to have is can you make it match the building, but, apparently, it does. Okay. Hall: You bet. Rohm: So much so that I have never noticed it and I drive by that corner everyday. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 64 of 87 Hall: Do you really? Rohm: Every day. Hall: Man. Borup: I didn't notice it until yesterday. Hall: I got a new customer. Thank you, and, of course -- as you know, one other thing I want to add, too, is that is a -- you know, six-by-eight building like that, it is portable, we can move it, even though we do have power and everything hooked up to it right now. But we can always move that to different areas and down the road -- you know, we are on phase two right now, it's in for building permit, we have got a Subway going in down there, we have got a Mexican restaurant, all kinds of stuff going on phase two gearing up for the school buses going across the street and stuff, we may move this somewhere else on the lot, if we decide to, down the road. We are not sure yet, but we will address that if we ever want to move it somewhere else down on that lot. Zaremba: Does that require a new application to have it in a different location? Kirkpatrick: Chairman, members of the Commission, if they have a proposed place and a time frame to move it, they need to get that approved tonight. Hall: Yeah. We don't -- we don't have anything like that. We are going to actually see how it works right now and if it needs to be moved down the road, we come back to you and come in front of you and ask you for permission to -- Borup: Are you aware of any -- are there any -- are there any buildings in Meridian now that are being used? I don't think Meridian has all that -- Hall: There is actually -- there is actually two right now on Fairview. Borup: Well, one of them is in the county. Hall: You have got the one on Fairview in front of Rocky Mountain Body Shop, which is just -- Borup: I think you're right. But that is one of the small buildings. That's in the city, I believe. I mean that should be in the city. Hall: Yeah, and then, you have got the one down on Fairview just before you get to Locust Grove. Borup: That one is in the county. Hall: Okay. Well -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 65 of 87 Borup: But that's a building also, isn't it. Hall: Yeah. That is a building. Yeah. I think -- I think -- I mean the vans are convenient for people, but I think we just won't allow that on our property, so -- Borup: Okay. Rohm: I like the building better than the van. Zaremba: Yeah. I have been in the one that's in front of Rocky Mountain Collision Repair -- Hall: Oh, have you? Zaremba: -- and it appears to function well. I, actually, think it's more practical than the vans from the operator's standpoint. Hall: I think it is, too, and the cost of building a building is -- I mean versus buying one of those vans -- and I don't know. It's been pretty simple for us. Borup: Wendy could you -- it sounds like there has been a change in direction on approval of these testing facilities. Could you expand on that a little bit? Kirkpatrick: Yeah. This is, actually, a decision made by Anna when she started with the City of Meridian, that these are a quasi-public use, because they are regulated through the state government and because they are a quasi-public use, they need to be permitted as a Conditional Use Permit, and I think -- it's a new policy change for Meridian, but this is -- so, we will now consistently be treating all emissions testing centers as Conditional Use Permits. Zaremba: That certainly makes sense if it's a physical building. Is she including the vans, though, too? Kirkpatrick: The vans will be included in that. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: And, then, what type of -- what are you looking at as far as -- landscaping was mentioned earlier, so what are we looking at as far as landscaping? Kirkpatrick: Well -- and, actually, when I talked to the applicant previously, I didn't know about the ten-foot limit on testing equipment they use. Zaremba: The hose. Yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 66 of 87 Kirkpatrick: So, I just wanted to -- you know, my personal opinion is that it would look nicer if there was landscaping. Borup: So, that's what I was going to ask. Was the landscaping just to -- just to address the physical appeal a little bit? Kirkpatrick: It is. Borup: Not necessarily any set standards, then? Kirkpatrick: Correct. It meets all the required setbacks currently. Borup: Well, I had a couple comments on that -- and, again, maybe we are spending too much time on this. It looks like the building is not quite up against the curb; is that true? Hall: The building is -- Borup: Is it touching the curb? Hall: It is about four inches from the curb. Borup: Okay. Hall: Just enough to get a two-inch conduit up that's coming up right here for power. Borup: I'm, again, thinking along the lines of landscaping. You know, a little planting bed or something along the building in the existing grass area I don't think would be real difficult to do. Hall: Unfortunately, nobody from the street would be able to see that, because we have -- we a have a berm type situation. Borup: Is it high enough that it would -- well, depending on what you planted it in. Hall: But then, I think it would cover up that big thing that says emissions testing that brings people in. Borup: Well, the only other thought I had on landscaping is -- yeah, the one you submitted, which -- probably ought to be -- should have been more careful on what you submitted the first time -- shows regular landscaping beds and stuff, but I think you could get some of that same appeal with just some nice planters, movable planters. Hall: You know. We were actually talking about putting a planter on each corner of the building. We may -- you know, because just in case we get the little gal that doesn't see so well and pulls in and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 67 of 87 Borup: A nice concrete planter. Hall: Yeah. I'm thinking that would be great. That would probably prevent some damage to the building, so -- you know, we are probably going to do something like that and -- Borup: That would spruce it up a little bit. Hall: Oh, yeah, and one thing about -- when we brought the packet in for our plan review, Anna said -- you know, she did say just submit this, this should be fine, and we said this is not what the building is actually going to look like, and she said just get it submitted, let's go. So, I'm sorry if we turned that in. We probably shouldn't have turned that specific drawing in. Borup: Probably not. Hall: That's why we -- that's why we -- on advice of Wendy, got you a brand new picture and that's an actual picture. Rohm: So, you wouldn't be opposed to a planter. Hall: Sure, we will put a planter. You know, we'd love to put a planter there. Rohm: A freestanding planter. Hall: I mean that's something -- you know. Borup: Wonderful. Hall: That's a piece of cake. I think we could probably go down to Home Depot and find something like that. Zaremba: Well -- and I agree trying to hide the building with esthetic planting defeats the purpose of having the building there in the first place. Hall: Unfortunately, it's kind of difficult with that berm to really get a lot of exposure, but we put -- the signage on the building is up very high, so they can at least see the top, You know, when you're at the corner. I mean you can't, unfortunately, look -- Rohm: I might see it tonight going home. Zaremba: But does the sign comply with the sign ordinance? Hall: Yes, it does. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 68 of 87 Kirkpatrick: Actually, I think that they do -- they were able to submit a sign application for the signs that have been put up. Zaremba: Well -- and I can see the sense -- you know, this is a drive-up window, essentially, so it does need to be a CUP. I can see they should all probably be CUP’s for -- Kirkpatrick: And, then, one additional note, we were going to request the applicant take the strobe like out of the window of the emissions -- Hall: You know, one thing is we look at it this way: If -- if there is going to be CUP’s required on all these emission testing centers, we -- you know, Larry and I have gone through this process several time, we know how to do CUPs and we are used to it. I don't think the other type of people that are in this kind of business, I don't think they are really going to want to go through that big process, so I think our competition is going to be narrowed down quite a bit, so that will be okay. Borup: So, you want to see more restrictions -- Hall: Absolutely. We are here now, so let's just keep it on. Borup: You want to add a few more? Hall: Well, not to ours, but let's go ahead and talk about -- Borup: Okay, are we ready to move on, then? Thank you. Rohm: I move that the Public Hearing be closed on CUP 03-049. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of item ten on our agenda, CUP 03-049, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an emissions testing center in a CC zone for Hark's Corner Emissions Center by L&J Capital Ventures, LLC, 1651 West Franklin Road, to include all staff comments -- let's see. Did the staff comments include a landscape buffer? Do we need to cancel that? Kirkpatrick: No, actually, that was not included. That was before I had seen the actual photo. Zaremba: To include all staff comments of their memo dated November 6, 2003. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 69 of 87 Rohm: And including a planter? Borup: Not a landscape buffer, but a decorative planter -- at least one on one corner of the building. Rohm: There you go. Perfect. I'll second that motion. Borup: Sounds good to me. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: CUP 03-050 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a new bank facility with drive up tellers in an OT zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by CSHQA – 703 North Main Street: Borup: Okay. The next item is number 11, CUP 03-050. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, we have a request from the applicant that this be continued to the meeting of December 18th, 2003. Unless there is somebody here to testify, I would so move. Borup: We need to open it first. Zaremba: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you did. Borup: I'm sorry. Wait a minute. Zaremba: I preempted you, didn't I? Borup: I don't know. I had forgotten. I didn't open it. I'd like to open Public Hearing CUP 03-050. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that this Public Hearing be continued to December 18th, 2003. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: At the request of the applicant. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 70 of 87 Borup: I'm just checking to see what we had. We had two subdivisions and a church. Rohm: It's time to go home. Borup: Was all we had. So, I think we are fine on -- okay. Zaremba: Okay. Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 03-051 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a coffee shop with auxiliary drive-thru in a C-G zone for Starbucks by Wenco, Inc. – northeast corner of South Meridian Road and East Corporate Drive: Borup: CUP 03-051, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a coffee shop with auxiliary drive-thru in a C-G zone for Starbucks by Wenco, Incorporated, at Meridian Road and East Corporate Drive. We'd like to open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Craig Hood. The applicant, Wenco, Incorporated, has requested Conditional Use Permit approval for the construction of a new Starbucks Coffee Shop with a drive-thru located on the northeast Corner of Meridian Street and Corporate Drive. The proposed coffee shop is proposed on Lot 2, Block 1, of Wenco Subdivision, and is located west of the Wendy's restaurant and north of the Taco Bell restaurant. I had a couple of other things that I was going to point out, but in the interest of time, I think the main outstanding issue is the landscaping adjacent to Meridian Road. I'd just like the Commission to know when this was originally looked -- the Wendy's parcel -- this all one parcel when Wendy's was developed, a subdivision called Wenco was -- has subsequently been recorded and the Starbucks subject has been split off from that original pad site. Conceptually, Starbucks has always been there, even when Wendy's was approved and the landscaping adjacent to Meridian and Main Street was previously reviewed and approved by the city. The applicant has shown a 25-foot landscape buffer on Meridian Road. However, the landscape buffer is measured from the back of the sidewalk and not the property line and there has been ten feet of additional right of way that was has been dedicated to the highway district. So, in the future, if all that right of way is utilized by a future road or sidewalk, the landscape buffer could be reduced down to 15 feet and I guess there are some to the south of this site, some landscaping buffers, because this is an entryway corridor, the 35 feet is the standard requirement, has been reduced. However, the parcels just to the north of this are currently undeveloped and I guess we are -- staff, at least, had some concerns with reducing that buffer for this block of a gateway street, understanding that, you know, the developed parcel is further to the south, there is no going back to this -- I believe it would set a bad precedent for the next guys that come in and want to develop theirs, too. So, I'd just like to, as an issue, special consideration -- I also did that get a copy of -- it doesn't look like it's recorded and I don't have Exhibit A, which it refers to, but the applicant has provided me with a Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 71 of 87 draft of the cross-access agreement between the lots, so I appreciate that. I believe that's the main thing. I'll stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions from the Commissioners? So, when Wendy's was approved, the street buffer was designed and approved at that time and that was designated as a pad site. You're saying even the site plan said Starbucks -- or did say that. Hood: It just said pad site. It was always envisioned that something similar to the current proposal would go in on this corner. But it was just conceptual in nature and, to tell you the truth, it didn't change a lot from that conceptual pad that was already envisioned -- Borup: Except for the fact that you're saying they need at least ten feet now. Hood: And there was some -- there were a couple different site plans, even with Wendy's and the Wenco, where the original submitted site plan showed the -- I believe there was -- there is 40 feet now total right of way and I believe there was 30 feet previously and one of the site plans did show a 25 foot landscape buffer measured to the -- at that time the current right-of-way line and one of them that acknowledged a ten foot right of way dedication to ACHD and, then, the 25 feet. So, there was -- Borup: Wasn't it one of the original or -- Hood: The approved site plan for the CUP for Wendy's showed the ten feet to be dedicated to ACHD and, then, a 25 foot landscape buffer to the near edge of the drive- thru aisle for the -- Borup: Okay. So, they were planning -- I mean they knew that they probably should be planning for that back then. Hood: Yes. Borup: All right. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Mr. Strite, is there anything that you'd like to say? Strite: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante in Boise, Idaho. I'm here on behalf of Wenco, the applicant, in support of the application and contrary to those last comments, I went back and looked at my files and Ada County Highway District had required that ten feet two months prior to our approval of the Wendy's site. If you go back and look at the approved Wendy's site that -- that was approved at the time we requested the pad site and Wendy's, it showed a 25 foot setback, but it clearly delineated a ten foot right of way take that Ada County Highway District had yet to take, however, had suggested they were going to take. Our argument at that time, as I'm sure the Chairman will remember, was the fact that -- Borup: I do remember. That's why I was asking. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 72 of 87 Strite: This particular site is subject to some fairly strong restrictions. First of all, it's surrounded on the south and the north by two sites that weren't affected by the landscape ordinance, because both of those were approved in 1999, one in 1995. I have before me a landscape bond for the parcel to the north for 15 foot of landscaping for a cost of 19,500 dollars, which is still in effect. So, in an effort to simplify this, the site to the north is only going to be 15 feet by virtue of the ongoing bond. The site to the south is less than ten feet today and, as a matter of fact, if you go south -- Borup: But the site to the north is not -- is not an entrance street, it's another property, isn't it? Strite: Mr. Chair, the site to the north is the Merchant's Plaza and it is along parallel with, if you will, Meridian Road, and that's where the landscape setback was in question. Merchant's Plaza -- Borup: You're talking about the landscape along Meridian. Strite: That's correct. That's the only thing we had in question. I think the staff report is right on, we have absolutely no concerns, with that one exception and it's a big exception, because I think what's happened here is that if you look to the south, that landscaping -- if you look in the lower right-hand corner, particularly, the lower right- hand corner behind Bolo's, that only measures ten feet. They are going to lose ten feet it's going to be zero. If you move south, as you go south towards Walden Lane, at the KFC there is exactly 21 feet. They are going to lose ten feet and it's going to be 11 feet. Now, as you move north, by virtue of the fact that the Merchant's Plaza and Rick Thomas signed this agreement for the landscape requirement on the north parcel, based on the fact that it was an approved subdivision and approved prior to the enactment of the ordinance, they only have 15 feet. So, having known that when we came before this Commission before, we understood that, that's why we suggested that we would have 25 feet, ten of which we new was going to go at some point in time, so we would be consistent with that parcel to the north owned by Rick Thomas. Borup: So, which was the -- which plat was it that was eventually approved by the city? Strite: Well, it's my belief -- and, unfortunately, I didn't look to see if there were two of them and I apologize -- Borup: But both of them would have been approved. It would have been one or the other, wouldn't it? Strite: Well, the one that I found in my file and that is consistent with this plan here, it shows the curb face, if you will, of the present drive-thru that we are proposing today, is in the exact same location as it was on the original proposal. So, therefore, it would be my opinion that it was approved with a 25 foot landscape strip, but clearly delineating a future take of ten feet, and I apologize to Craig, I could not find the site plan that Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 73 of 87 suggested that there was ten feet of take and, then, 25 feet. Consequently -- and I think it's pretty self-evident today if you go out there, we designed the entire site from Corporate Drive entry west, with the exception of the outgoing pad, with that in mind. So, all the curbing is in place, all the landscaping is in place, all the drainage pads are in place -- if we decide now that we have to take ten feet off -- first of all, we can't meet the Wendy's requirements. There is a note in there that we are over parked and certainly we agree to that. By city ordinance we are over parked. But by Wendy's criteria we are not over parked and I think you will find that consistent with the testimony that I gave this Commission at the Wendy's approval. If, in fact, we decide now to take those ten feet, we are going to have to come back, remove planters, remove curbing, and regrade the entire site. So, I think it sets quite a burden on the applicant, which certainly we thought was taken care of in the original approval. But I think probably more importantly, if you look at the real picture, the south side of this site and the north side of this site were both approved prior to the ordinance enactment and prior to the 35 foot requirement. So, I think it would be appropriate to stay consistent, at least in this block north to Gem Street, at the standard 15 foot setback at the time Ada County Highway District, in fact, takes their ten feet and other than that -- and I know that's a mayor issue here. We find the staff report is fine. We have absolutely no problems with it and apologize of there was some confusion on the site plans. I did not find two site plans that differentiated two different setbacks. So, with that -- all the other conditions are fine. We have no problem. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: I think you did a good job of assessing it. It certainly looks accurate to me. Zaremba: I have a question probably for Brad. Can we put a condition on this that the Wendy's sign on the other end of this property not be operated in such an obnoxious manner? Did the new sign ordinance pass the City Council sometime in the last week or two? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it did. Last night. It's not gone into effect I don't think. I mean the publishing takes, what, three or four days right? So, it's technically -- we usually base it off the publishing date, but is the legal description that was submitted with the application describing the entire Wenco site or are we talking about just the Starbucks lot? Strite: Mr. Chairman, Brad, I think that the legal description submitted was the entire parcel, because at the time we submitted I think you and I both spoke that we weren't certain that Wenco had, actually, recorded that survey and I did not find until after that the actual survey and plat was, in fact, recorded and that -- and Craig is absolutely correct, it was at that point that they did, in fact, take that ten feet. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Well, I mean I think I asked that, because, you know, the legal description that was submitted with the application is -- you know, we are talking about that's the property that this Conditional Use Permit is subject to. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 74 of 87 Strite: Which is the same property that we are speaking of tonight. Hawkins-Clark: Which I think to answer your question, Commissioner, then, that sign does sit on property which is part of the Conditional Use Permit application. Zaremba: So, we could make a condition that the existing sign on the Wendy's end comply with the new sign ordinance. Hawkins-Clark: I think the Commission does have that privilege. I don't know that -- I really don't think that it's necessary. We have -- we were instructed by the Council to do a -- if you will, education campaign with all of the reader board owners in the City of Meridian, to educate them about the new five second rule, and actually, that five second rule is delayed 30 days from the rest of the sign ordinance. There was a split effective date in the ordinance, so -- but it's certainly the Commission's privilege. Zaremba: Well, I think the education campaign would be helpful. I could see not adding it as a requirement. I'm not sure whether you're aware of what we are talking about. Borup: It sounds like you would really enjoy doing that. Zaremba: Well, I would -- Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I don't know -- I don't know of what you speak, but -- and, fortunately, for us and I completely -- total agreement, I can complete that normally anyway, but we have nothing to do with signs, so I have no comment beyond that. Zaremba: Except that it does exist on the property we are talking about. I could trust the educational campaign to resolve the issues that many of us have with the Wendy's sign. Borup: The only other question I have, Mr. Strite, you had mentioned something -- I thought you said something about parking, but the staff report says there is excess. Rohm: Yeah. That's what he said. They are over parked Strite: Yes. Mr. Chair -- and that's absolutely correct. We are over parked by virtue of your code. Borup: Okay. I misunderstood that. Strite: But as a matter of fact, we are right on with the Wendy's -- Borup: Okay. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking the other direction. I Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 75 of 87 understand. Strite: I just wanted to point that out, because we didn't throw the sea of parking out there, because we knew we could get away with less with the City of Meridian. Borup: Okay. Any other comments? I think we'll take time to hear from the public. That's, really, the only issue, isn't it? The landscaping? I understand what the ordinance is, but you know this is, again, being consistent with surrounding properties. So, does the staff have any real problem with what's proposed? Other than realizing it doesn't meet strictly the -- Hood: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, I guess the main reason that I brought it up was in preparing this report I just wanted to make you aware that I didn't believe that what the applicant was proposing was consistent with what was previously approved for the site, so I will leave the decision up to you, but just wanted to bring that up, that I believe that it was 25 feet outside of the right of way. The applicant is showing 15, so -- Borup: And even if that were the case, the question here would be whether there is a big problem with the way it's proposed. I mean considering the fact that it would be consistent with the surrounding properties. Hood: It appears to be consistent and I spoke with Brad just a little bit about the property that already has the bond for the 15-foot of right of way and there may be some discussion. Based on this, I think we would probably be supportive of them, even, going with a reduced buffer, because it makes sense for this site to have a reduced buffer and, then, it widens back out, almost similar to what we just talked about at Cherry Lane, but we do want it to be consistent, so -- Borup: Now, I'm confused. Which part would widen out? It would be this project that would be a wider buffer, wouldn't it? The project to the north wouldn't be any wider. Hood: And that's the -- it depends on -- I guess my interpretation would be what -- it depends on what they want to develop on that site. If they come in and they need a CU, they'd need to comply with the ordinance -- Borup: Okay. Hood: So, even though -- Borup: Which would be different than the -- Hood: Make them do -- I guess depending on what they come in with, we may require them to do additional landscaping, in addition to that 15 feet that's already been required. So, that's -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 76 of 87 Borup: Okay. I was assuming that that was what was already agreed upon and that's what they would be required to do, so -- that could change, you're saying? Hood: That would be my interpretation, yes. Strite: If I could, Mr. Chair, we are representing the new buyer of that property to the north, that's why I have the bond in my hand, and we are coming back here with a CZC, it will be submitted to staff probably in the next ten to 15 days and we are staying with the consistency of the 15 foot of landscaping. Borup: Well, that's what you're requesting. Strite: That's what we -- we don't require a conditional use on that parcel to the north, because it was approved as a full lot subdivision with 15 foot landscaping. All we are going to require is CZC and we are going to have those two buildings and that's why I knew that I only had 15 feet to the north and I'm suggesting we knew that when we did the Wendy's site to the south and we were trying to be consistent, because we made an agreement with Rick Thomas to provide cross-access from Wendy's to that parcel to the north and vice-versa, if you will. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Zaremba: Well, cross-access was another question. You have the cross-access. Strite: Commissioner Zaremba, yes, I have the deeded and recorded access from Thomas to Wenco -- or Merchant's Plaza to Wenco and I have an unrecorded Wenco the Starbucks, Starbucks to Wenco in the staff's hands. Unfortunately, I was unable to get that recorded before the day was out, but we will have it before City Council, certainly. Zaremba: Okay. That answers that question. Well, I could be comfortable with a 15- foot landscape buffer, if that's forced to happen to the north and clearly it's going to be 15 or less to the south. Again, as an entry corridor, it would be nice to have the 25. Borup: Now are we talking -- are we talking some increased landscaping, then? Zaremba: Mitigation or alternate compliance? Strite: Once, again, if I might interrupt. If you go back to the minutes of the Winco approval, that was the reasoning for reducing it from the 35 originally, because we did an alternative landscape. As a matter of fact, I believe the numbers were something like 2,500 square feet of landscaping along the north boundary, when we only required something like five feet times whatever that is, 300 feet or 400 feet. You will see that the north boundary in the northwest quadrant has something like ten or 12 feet of landscaping, when it was only required to have five, and according to the minutes that I was able to drag out from our hearing, it would appear to me that it was consistent with Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 77 of 87 the alternative requirements, which Mr. McKinnon at that time had agreed to and so also did the Commission. Borup: Right. I think we are talking about the density of the landscaping trees and shrubbery. Well, not necessarily the increase of the -- oh, throughout or along Meridian Road? Or both? You're saying both. Strite: Well, the alternative compliance, as we discussed in the hearing for Wendy's, included the additional landscaping and, if you recall the comments relative to moving those three plumb trees or fruit trees of some sort that ended up inadvertently on our property, we moved those and replanted them on our property and those were considered at that time to be, I think, part of the alternative landscape requirements. At least that's what I garnered out of the minutes of -- Borup: Well, I assume the landscaping plan we have is -- Strite: Yeah. Everything is there that you can see. The landscaping -- Borup: Well, it's not there now, but it will be when Starbucks is developed. Strite: Oh, there would be a minor adjustment. There is not really much to the additional landscaping. If you look at the landscaping that's there now, the total perimeter is already completed. The only thing that's missing is a small planter that will separate the drive-thru lane from the bypass lane and two small planters on either end of the Starbucks parking aisle. Everything else is already in place and been completed. Borup: Well, it's about 14, 15 trees, plus the large shrubs. That's a lot of landscaping, isn't it? Strite: Well, probably not enough, but -- Borup: Well, no, what I'm saying is that the landscape design is the -- you couldn't get any more dense than what you have got it designed, really. You're filling up the site as much as you can go and if that's what's going to be going in, then, I think we have got some good landscaping buffer along Meridian Road. Strite: I think you will find little difference between that buffer area and the plan submitted tonight -- landscape plan wise and the landscape plan that was approved under the original Wendy's approval. Borup: Well, other than from what I see here you're still missing -- Strite: Yeah. That's a pad site that was uncompleted. That's correct. Borup: Okay. That's all I have. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 78 of 87 Zaremba: Are we ready? Borup: Yes. Let's move on. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that Public Hearing Item 12 CUP 03-051 be closed. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda, CUP 03-051, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a coffee shop with auxiliary drive-thru in a C-G zone for Starbucks by Wenco, Inc., northeast corner of South Meridian Road and East Corporate Drive, to include all staff comments of the staff memo of November 6, received by the Clerk November 3, 2003, with one exception, and that is on page six, paragraph one under the site specific requirements, this is approved with currently a 25 foot landscape buffer, knowing that ten feet of that, eventually, will be taken away for the right of way. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-052 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct three buildings for Wendy’s / Starbucks / Kinkos with auxiliary drive thrus and a 6,500 square foot retail pad in a I-L zone by Wenco, Inc. – northwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Florence Street: Borup: Next Item is CUP 03-052, request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct three buildings for Wendy's, Starbucks, Kinko's, with drive-thrus, 6,500 foot building in an I-L zone at Eagle and Florence. Open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Great. Thank you. Chairman Borup, members of the Commission. Borup: Is this what you waited all night for? Hawkins-Clark: Well, a lot of -- no, I just want to be here. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 79 of 87 Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: A similar application to the one you just had. The lot is south of the Krispy Kreme restaurant on Eagle Road in the Treasure Valley Business Center Subdivision. It's Lot 11 in the Treasure Valley Business Center existing, but as noted it the staff report, they have a preliminary plat already approved that is resubdividing all of this northerly part of Treasure Valley Business Center into -- I think it's 40 plus lots. So, they have this lot one that is shown in bold here is proposed to go into four different lots. I understand that there are within just a few weeks of coming in with that final plat application to the city. Briggs Engineering has been working on that and Steve Arnold has said that they are very close to coming in with that. So, we would see -- we would see that broken up into -- into four lots, as well as approval of the preliminary plat. Here on the screen is the site plan. It starts with a -- kind of fuzzy nature of it, but they did resubmit one that we had to scan in that didn't come in too well, but, as you can see, they have got three buildings, not four. If they come in with four lots, it really won't impact it much. You can have a public parking lot -- well, a parking lot on it's own lot. That would be no problem. So, either way I don't think there is -- there is going to be any issues with that. Borup: So, that would take care -- no necessity for a planned development, then? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. We still have the Conditional Use Requirement, of course, because they had two drive-thrus, so I think it -- as I presented, they have the two options and they have selected to just not do a planned development, so they don't have the amenities, which restricts them to just one building until that plat is recorded. But I'll let Mr. Strite deal with that a little bit more. I think since the application was submitted, we have received four other documents and I just wanted to make sure that the Commission was aware of. One of those is this revised site plan that basically complies with some of the recommendations that we made. The main one being this pad is -- on Olive has been reduced by about 1,500 square feet. It was 6,500 and they have come in now with a 5,000 and that's tied to the parking ratio. So, they -- that was one of the documents that we have received. The second one was a November 4, two page fax that responded to the staff report, some of the -- about six main items. You should have received that and then, the third one was a November 5th fax that was the cross-access section from the restrictive covenants that are in place for the existing subdivision and that cross-access just demonstrates that -- that these two lots, Lot 1 and Lot 11, have -- do all already have the cross-access, so -- and, then, the last thing that we have received since they applied -- and I think maybe even since the packets were put out, is the ITD did send in a letter. It's just their standard pro forma letter that says they want 70 feet setback from buildings from the center line of Eagle Road, this is a type four facility, which the site plan doesn't have the center line of Eagle Road on it, but I have no doubt that they met that. So, I think there are just maybe two or three quick items on the staff report to point out. We are pretty much in agreement now with the fax that Mr. Strite sent in that made some of the changes. I'll just show you the elevation. Here is the new the site data. I put this in here just so you could see the Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 80 of 87 parking required, that they have now bumped this Wendy's up to -- they had the five spaces per customer window, plus one for every 200 square feet, so they have 24 spaces for the Wendy's, 30 spaces for Starbucks, Kinko's, and 25 for the pad, which, again, is that reduced square footage at 5,000. So, total parking required 79 and they are providing 81, so this is -- Zaremba: Is that including the parking that's on fourth lot? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. This would be on the entire two acres. Zaremba: So, if something happened on the fourth lot, they would fall below the parking requirements. Hawkins-Clark: Certainly. Yeah. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Doesn't sound like they are going to get much -- Zaremba: Maybe an emission's testing station. Strike: Six by six with a landscape planter. Hawkins-Clark: So, I think that new data shows that they could get the 100 percent retail use of that pad site, which my staff report said they couldn't do one hundred percent retail, but this shows they have got two spaces beyond the ordinance now and - - Zaremba: Well, your staff report said they couldn't do it if it was the 6,500 square foot building. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Zaremba: And at 5,000 -- Hawkins-Clark: They have reduced it. Zaremba: It is okay. Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. Okay. We also had a comment on how the elevation of that future building orients to Olive and this is the south -- the new south elevation that they have submitted and, then, the west elevation, which is on the top here, that would be oriented to Olive, does now wrap around some windows, so I think that helps to improve the pedestrian side of the building. The east elevation is the one that goes towards Eagle Road, sort of towards the internal part of the project and, as you can see, that has the storefronts on it, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 81 of 87 Borup: But that's also where the drive-thru is. Hawkins-Clark: This building would not have a drive-thru as proposed. This is the pad site that is shown here in the northwest corner. Borup: Oh. Okay. Hawkins-Clark: And here is Olive. So, their drive-thru for Wendy's is here on the south side coming in and they would drive north and then, would exit out to the west and then, the Starbucks is here on the east end of this combined building and this same drive pattern coming in from the south, driving north, and then, exiting out to the west, and the staff report talked about this intersection right here where the Wendy's drive-thru exits and the Starbucks drive-thru enters. We had suggested some signage here just to basically keep these Wendy's people aware that this is a drive-thru aisle right where they are exiting, kind of just a heads up to be aware of that and we had suggested that this window for Starbucks be shifted to the north, because of the stacking depth that would probably block this parking space here. They did submit a new floor plan that -- and elevation that showed this Starbucks window shifting up here to the northern portion of their building, which I think probably gives them another two and a half vehicle depth, stacking depth, so I think that's -- that gives them I think about six vehicles to stack without blocking the parking for the Kinko's. There is only one additional condition that I'd like to suggest and that is -- would be number 10 on page seven. It would be a new number 10 and that's to construct an all-weather access drive, minimum 20 foot in width that would -- go back again here. Provide temporary access right at the northern boundary of this property across Lot 1 and, then, enter onto Olive and the Fire Department and Mr. Strite, they have had discussions about that, we just don't have anything in writing that stated that they are going to have to provide that. They are in agreement to do that, but I think we still need to just make it a condition that they put a 20-foot wide, all-weather access drive from the north property line to connect to Olive Avenue. I think we -- that will have to be constructed prior to the first certificate of occupancy. So, other than that -- oh, I guess we do. On item number four, under site specific, page six, I think we can strike the first two sentences now, because we have now received that cross-access, but you don't need to record a separate cross-access easement. I think -- at least staff is fine with the existing CC&R’s and I did talk with Attorney Gabbert today and I think we are okay with the -- it's a nonexclusive easement. Zaremba: So, on four you're saying the first two sentences come out. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Zaremba: Does that next sentence address the driveway you were just talking about? Hawkins-Clark: Actually, you're right. That does. Zaremba: We just need to specify if it's a 20-foot -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 82 of 87 Hawkins-Clark: It just -- yeah. Good point. I didn't see that before. Yeah. Thank you. We just need to add the fact that it's 20 feet and that it would need to be installed prior to the first CO. Zaremba: Okay. Can you go back to the site plan for just a second? That one. I am not sure what the scale is, but have you double-checked to see that the driveway that enters onto Florence is far enough away from Olive? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, you're speaking about this -- Zaremba: The setback from the street that's -- I think that's Olive. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. The north-south street is Olive and the East-West Street is Florence. Zaremba: And that driveway is far enough away from Olive? Hawkins-Clark: Well, we don't have any offset standards in our code. Ada County Highway District, I believe, is 50 for a driveway. That will -- when they submit for a certificate of zoning compliance and we send this over, that will certainly be a comment that their construction people would make at the highway district. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Thanks. Borup: Anything you'd like to add, Mr. Strite? Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante. I'm here on behalf of Wendy's Starbucks, speaking in favor of this application and I think Brad's laid it out quite well, maybe just for clarification and I will start with the four-lot subdivision. It was my understanding in my discussions with Steve Arnold, that they were going to cut that back in the final process as three lots and now I assume that that's -- you can do that between preliminary and final plat, but that's the way he explained to me is he was dropping it back to three lots, the three lots as delineated -- in fact, I think they did that delineation. I don't think I can take credit for that. So, what they were going to do when they come back for their final attempt, it's going to be a three lot subdivision, if you will. So, that's just for clarification. As to Commissioner Zaremba's comment relative to the access, the access is constructed per Ada County Highway District standards. It was constructed as part of our Primary Health to the south, it's a classified as a -- as a local street with a 50 foot offset and so it is, in fact, constructed per their requirement and it is in place. Zaremba: The curb cut is already there? Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 83 of 87 Strite: That's correct. They constructed that when we constructed the Primary Health thing to the south. Zaremba: Okay. Strite: So, I think with that, maybe the best thing to do is just try to iron out some of these -- unless you have questions of me, I certainly have no questions of the staff report, it's just I'm a little confused, because I have added so many things -- I have been sending Brad things on an hourly basis -- maybe just the specific site conditions, if we could spell those out. I have absolutely no problem with item number one, for instance. Item number two is of no longer any consequence, because the drive-thru window has been moved to the north side of the building and the stack lane is now eight cars deep. So, my guess is that that comment could be struck in its entirety, unless -- unless Brad has opposition to that. What we did originally -- and I'm not sure if I can handle this little thing very well -- we had it right here and the drive-thru window actually came around like this straight up here and over. Now, we have moved the drive-thru window to right there. So, we have eight cars from the window back down to this location right here. So, I think that that's -- Borup: Are you okay with striking that, Brad? Is that -- Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Strite: I would suspect that that thing could be -- Borup: He said he agreed to that. Strite: I think that could be struck. Zaremba: I agree with that change, but the latest drawing that I have shows it the old way. Is there a newer one? Strite: There is a new one that -- yeah. The one that he has there -- and I trust it's dated. I believe you gave us a date. I could find the submittal date, if you wish, that I sent it over to Brad, but that is the latest one. Zaremba: I'm just saying in our motion we would reference -- Strite: Yeah. It would be nice if you could on that one that I sent you, because I can tell you that -- that I just received corporate approval from Starbucks based on that plan, so I think -- I think -- I think that is, in fact, the plan. While he's digging for that, it might be appropriate to take number three and just delete B, because we are already going to be back with a plat. As suggested on number four -- Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 84 of 87 Borup: Now on -- pertaining to that also, are you assuming that the new plat will be filed soon enough that -- or are you going to be starting one or the other of these buildings first? Strite: Mr. Chairman, it's our intent to start the Starbucks Kinko's building first. We are obligated to have that operational prior to the Wendy's, so we would be -- we are fine with the condition that we would not be able to start the Wendy's until such time as -- Borup: That works fine on the Wendy's schedule? Strite: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Strite: That's correct, and I'm told by Mr. Arnold that that can happen within 30 days. I hope he's correct. Borup: You mean submit it -- Strite: That scares me. Borup: You mean submit it in 30 days or -- Strite: No. No. No. He's -- supposedly he's supposed to be in here next week or prior to our submittal to the City Council -- or your ongoing to City Council. That's what he told me today. He's prepared to submit it. Borup: Well, if he submits it now, it's not going to be on until January almost, isn't it? Strite: Well, that's not going to affect us. I'm just suggesting that he's on our heels. Borup: Right. Okay. Strite: We are only going to build one building, so it's kind of a moot point, put certainly we understand and I'm -- right here. Public testimony. We understand there is only going to be one building built until such time as that plat is recorded and I think that's the bottom line. Borup: All right. Strite: So, I'm just suggesting for simplification we just eliminate B. I think Brad has already handled item number four. I have talked -- I talked to Joe Silva's office today, Joe was out of the office today. I had talked to him and we do have a plan we had submitted to him and it marked out an area, if you will, that goes off this north entry right here, goes straight up like this and goes straight over here and back up to this paved driveway that comes south from Krispy Kreme and the reason we have to do that is Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 85 of 87 because at this particular point in time Krispy Kreme has no intentions of improving their ground south of their unit or north of our boundary. So, we are prepared to provide an all-weather access, a minimum of 20 feet wide. Borup: So, Krispy Kreme had two lots? Strite: Yeah. They actually own everything north of this site. That's correct, and supporting 70,00 pounds. If you want to put as required by Meridian Fire Department, that's also fine with us. Item number four. Number five again I think that can be scratched. Hawkins-Clark: I guess I would just -- I mean you have complied with it. I guess I'd just prefer just to leave it. Strite: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: I mean you have complied with it, but at least that way it stays in the records. Strite: That's fine. That's fine. Number six. We have no problem with that. Although, I will suggest to you that Wendy's, as you probably already know by seeing some of the others, they have a do not enter sign, but I think it might be appropriate to put something on the exiting side that might caution them that there is, in fact, a drive-thru lane, so we have no problem with that. Number seven -- Zaremba: And I'm thinking the sign should be something like oncoming crossover traffic or something, because that's precisely what's happening. Strite: We would be happy to discuss with staff whatever they think is appropriate. Zaremba: Okay. Strite: Number seven. I think that, again, gets back to the platting, so I'm not sure that that's necessary. Again, I will ask staff's comments on that. Because we know we are platting and they are going to come back here probably before -- as far as I'm concerned, I'm not -- either way, it doesn't make any difference to me, but it seems redundant to have if, in fact, we are going to plat anyway. Borup: Except for maybe B? Strite: Well, I'm only talking about A at this point. Yeah. Hawkins-Clark: Oh. A. Correct. Yeah. I have no problem with that. Strite: No. I hadn't got to B yet. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 86 of 87 Borup: Okay. Strite: One and four. I thought that we had made those corrections, if not, certainly, you can leave that in. We have no problem with that, and if you go back to -- to C, again, I think Brad's already made comment to that, you saw the site and building data that we have provided, so that could be struck as well. Borup: Well -- or, again, just leave it and -- it's been complied with. Strite: Or complied with. Yeah. That's -- either way. Either way, and I would trust, then, we will eliminate ten. Going back -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Strite: -- ten that you added, to go back and make that part of four? Hawkins-Clark: If they include that in four, then, we are fine. Strite: Yeah, and that's -- yes. Sorry for the confusion and there has been a lot of documents floating back and forth, but as long as we have a date, I think it should -- I hope would suffice and I would ask for your support. Borup: Did you find -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That would be if you referenced the new revised plan, received by the Clerk on November 3. It was stamped by the Clerk on November 3. Borup: Other questions from any Commissioners? Zaremba: Not really a question, but I was driving around last week thinking there ought to be a Kinko's in Meridian and we should call headquarters in Ventura County, California, and tell them there should be one here and -- Borup: I'm impressed with how fast you get things done. Zaremba: Boy, I tell you, I never even made the call and here it is. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Strite: One last comment. I would probably reiterate what Mr. McKinnon said about Jerry. He was a great guy and certainly I appreciated working with him, so -- thank you. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on Item 13, CUP 03-052, be closed. Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 87 of 87 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, CUP 03-052, request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct three buildings for Wendy's, Starbucks, Kinko's, with auxiliary drive-thrus and a 5,000 square foot retail pad in an I-L zone by Wenco, Inc., northwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Florence Street. The site plan to be that received by the Clerk and stamped November 3rd, 2003, and to include all staff comments of the staff memo of November 6th, 2003, received by the Clerk November 3rd, 2003, with the following exceptions. On page six, paragraph three, item B, can be deleted. Borup: Do you want to just start with the numbered items? Would that be easier? Oh, I'm sorry. You did. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Page six, paragraph three, item B, delete it. In paragraph four, the first two sentences can be deleted and now the first sentence is: The off-site driveway shall be installed per Meridian Fire Department specifications, to be at least 20 feet wide, all weather, and to be installed prior to certificate of occupancy, and then, the last sentence stands as is. On page six, again, paragraph seven, sub paragraph A, can be deleted. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Well, I will say again, as everybody else has, I certainly miss Jerry Centers. He's made great contributions to this and I enjoyed working with him as long as I have been on the Commission with him. That being said, I move we adjourn. Rohm: And I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 11:25. Meridian Planning & Zoning November 6, 2003 Page 88 of 87 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:25 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ______________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK