Loading...
2003 09-04Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 4, 2003 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M., on Thursday, September 4, 2003, by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Jerry Centers, Michael Rohm, Leslie Mathes, and David Zaremba. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Bruce Freckleton, Steve Siddoway, Sharon Smith, Anna Powell, Wendy Kirkpatrick, Craig Hood, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll Call Attendance: ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ Jerry Centers ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___ Chairman Keith Borup Borup: We'd like to begin the scheduled meeting of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for September 4th and start with the roll call attendance. Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of August 7, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: B. Approve minutes of August 21, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: First item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, consisting of minutes from August 7th and 21st . Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I have comments on both sets of minutes. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Small minor things. On the minutes of August 7 -- on the minutes of August 7th , Page 69, the second time that I speak, near the end of that, the last two sentences need to be combined, so that it says with the notice that the applicant and the neighbors are going to hold a meeting. The word and instead of a period and, then, on Page 89, the first time I speak, the second line, one side of it it says is Fairview, that should be Franklin. Those are my only comments on August 7th . If nobody else has August 7th Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 2 of 96 comments, I have August 21st comments. On Page 23 of August 21st , very bottom of the page, the last line, I'm quoted as saying I'm inclined to let the new residential -- that should be no new residential. Insert the word no. On Page 47, the second time I speak I was actually quoting from something else and the sentence should read this driveway does not meet district policy and should not be -- insert the word not be approved. August 21st also, Page 63, near the bottom of the page, not the last time I speak, but the time before that, it tells how they will -- it should be save money, save, and the second sentence it did not explain how you would save, save, money. Those are my only comments. Centers: I would second -- I assume you made a motion to approve, Commissioner Zaremba? Borup: Not yet. Zaremba: If nobody else has any comments. Centers: Well, I have a comment that I think any minutes that are amended with the word no or not, should be verified by the tape or the minutes before inserting those. Zaremba: I remember speaking those words, but I agree with you. Centers: So, the Clerk would be advised to check that before it's inserted. Zaremba: I agree with that. Borup: Do we have a motion to approve the amended minutes? Zaremba: So move. Borup: With the comments to double-check. Centers: As noted. I would second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Recommendation: VAC 03-005 Request to vacate 29 feet of right of way along the alignment of Venable Lane for Cedar Springs No. 3 by Howell Murdoch Development, Corp. – west of North Meridian Road and north of West Ustick Road: Borup: The next item is a recommend -- the next item would be in the form of a recommendation from this Commission and that is VAC 03-005. This is a request to vacate 29 feet of right of way along the alignment of Venable Lane for Cedar Springs Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 3 of 96 No. 3 and I believe this is back before us with instructions, probably from this body and the City Council, so who has a report on that? Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, as you stated, this is an application for a vacation of a 29-foot right of way. The subject property is located at the northwest intersection of Meridian Road and Ustick Road and I will show you where that easement to be vacated is located. The easement is being vacated per the recommendation of staff, so that lots along the western edge of the subdivision do not have double frontage. Staff recommends approval of this vacation. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? The only question I had was the comment from the Irrigation District and were they confused on -- okay. It looked to me like they may have been confused on where their easement actually was and -- Kirkpatrick: Well, actually, if you look through their packet, there is a second letter clarifying -- see, there is the first letter where they showed concern. There is a second letter, dated August 26th , which states, after further clarification -- Borup: Oh. Okay. I'm sorry. They were in a different order. Right. I read the second one first. Thank you. Okay. Any other -- any other questions or comments from any of the Commission? We just need a -- just a recommendation to City Council. Again, this is not a Public Hearing, this is just for us to review and recommend. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda VAC 03-005. Rohm: I will second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5. Public Hearing: AZ 03-019 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.038 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Highgate Subdivision by Harris Homes, LLC - 2700 North Meridian Road: Item 6. Public Hearing: PP 03-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots and 10 other lots on 15.038 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Highgate Subdivision by Harris Homes, LLC – 2700 North Meridian Road: Item 7. Public Hearing: CUP 03-039 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for single-family residential Planned Development with a mix of attached and detached housing in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Highgate Subdivision by Harris Homes, LLC – 2700 North Meridian Road: Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 4 of 96 Borup: Okay. Our next item is -- okay. The next three items are pertaining to the same project. All three Public Hearings. I'd like to open the following Public Hearings at this time, AZ 03-019, request for annexation and zoning of 15.038 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Highgate Subdivision by Harris Homes, LLC. It's at 2700 North Meridian Road. Also PP 03-023, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots and ten other lots on the same project, and CUP 03-039, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a single family residential Planned Development with a mix of attached and detached housing, again, on the same project. With these Public Hearings open at this time, I'd like to start with, the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The subject property is located on the west -- no. Sorry, the east side of Meridian Road, just south of Ustick, about a quarter mile south. The property is outlined on the vicinity map on the screen. It's directly adjacent to Lansbury Lane across the street to the west. Bedford Place and Fothergill Subdivision is to the east and, then, the property to the north and south are both undeveloped rural residential properties that currently remain in Ada County. You should have a staff report, dated September 2nd and today's hearing date. I'll go through it and give you the highlights. It is approximately 15 acres. There were some discrepancies on the acreages, which I'll hit in a moment as I go through the special considerations, but on that 15 acres they are proposing to annex it, zone it R-8, and they have proposed a plat. That plat -- the plat has 74 residential lots and ten other lots. Those other lots are open space street buffers, micropaths, and storm water. The density of it -- the gross density is 4.63 acres. The net density after subtracting out all roads and other nonbuildable areas is 8.08 dwelling units per acre. The lot sizes range from just over 4,000 to almost 9,000 square feet, but the project is basically divided in two. With the area closest to Meridian Road, being planned for single-family attached homes and the area in the rear planned for single-family detached homes. The lots for the attached units range, generally, from 4,000 to 4,500 and most of the lots in the detached area are around 5,000 square feet, though there is some variation in some of the -- some of the corner lots are larger and that's where the larger ones that are almost 9,000 square feet are. In addition to the plat, they were proposing a Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development. As a part of the Planned Development, they are requesting reduced standards for lot sizes, frontage, setbacks, house size, and the ability to exceed the block length requirement. As amenities for that Planned Development request, they are proposing a tot lot playground on Lot 15, Block 3, and, then, a pathway that runs along the north end of the property where the Onweiler Lateral is. The pathway and the tot lot are the two proposed amenities. They also stated in their application that they met the ten percent open space requirement -- well, it's not a requirement, but they had 10 percent open space also. After recalculating it and based on the revised plans, it's about eight and a half percent. The items that need resolution are highlighted in the two special considerations section. The first one is for the Preliminary Plat and it is located on Page 7. Item A is the nonbuild agreement. In the original application as submitted by the applicant they had requested a nonbuild agreement on a couple of the lots that -- they have since submitted a letter that that will go away and they are no longer requesting that, it's not an issue. We would just ask the applicant to verify that for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 5 of 96 record. Item B is the future right of way. There is, along Meridian Road, a requirement for additional right of way. The applicant has provided for that, but in the plat as received it did not a have a lot and block in the subdivision, so we would just simply ask that it be revised to show a lot and block for those lots that contain the future right of way. Then, they can be dedicated to ACHD in the future when they are able to purchase that right of way from them. Item C is the attached housing and I noted that Lots 2 through 14 of Block 3 are intended for the single-family attached homes. That basically follows this line, cuts straight down, and is around here. As I counted around this area, there was an odd number and so one of the lots would have to have a detached house. I have asked them to demonstrate tonight which -- how they would accomplish that and I believe they are prepared to do that tonight. Item D deals with the acreage. All of the applications, the annexation, the plat, and the CUP all mention the acreage as 15.038. As I went through and verified that, given the legal descriptions that were submitted, and also in talking with their surveyor, I believe that the correct acreages are noted at the bottom of that paragraph and the annexation should be 16 acres even and the plat and the CUP are, actually, 15.68. We would just like to receive verification of that also. Item E is the encroachment agreement. The lots on the south back up to the South Slough and the South Slough runs right along this edge. Those lots do encroach into the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District easement. I can't remember how many feet off the top of my head, but they do encroach. We have just asked that the application provide a signed encroachment agreement with Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District prior to the Final Plat application. I know the applicant has been in discussions with Nampa-Meridian and would ask that she represent -- whether they same to be favorable towards that. Item F is the phasing. There is no phasing shown. We just want to verify that they do intend to do it as a single phase and Item G -- there is a micropath lot shown right here. We had originally been in discussions with the applicant about whether or not a stub street would be needed to connect to Hawk. We decided that one was not needed and asked for a pedestrian access to get to the South Slough. The width of that as shown is 10 feet, which is too narrow. If it stays in that location, it would need to be widened to at least 15 feet. We have offered the option in the staff report of shifting that micropath down to be part of the open space lot where the storm drainage is designated and just add those 10 feet on. Then, they would be able to accommodate that without modifying the other lot frontages. That's all on the plat. If there is any -- I'll pause for any questions before moving on to the Conditional Use Permit. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Siddoway: Okay. Moving on, then. On Page 12, you have the special considerations for the Conditional Use Permit. The first item is a ditch tiling waiver and, for the record, the applicant is not requesting a waiver from the requirement to tile the Onweiler. However, we -- staff does know that an application has been submitted for a request to waive the requirement for the Silhouette Subdivision, which is just adjacent to it in this corner. They have requested to receive a waiver from City Council on the requirement to tile the Onweiler in that location. They have a condition on their subdivision to build a pathway along -- along it and landscape it. They are proposing to leave it open and Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 6 of 96 make it an amenity for that pathway. In the proposed Silhouette Subdivision, they are proposing to continue that pathway that Silhouette Subdivision will build and all we have noted is that we will -- we will address the issue of tiling this ditch with the Final Plat. I think that it is prudent, if tiling of the ditch for Silhouette, if a wafer is granted, then, a waiver should also be granted here. I suppose it's not a pertinent issue right now. They are proposing to leave it, to tile it per standard ordinances. The South Slough is a larger drain and has not been tiled elsewhere and they would be requesting a waiver from the requirement to tile the South Slough. Item B is a public easement. I have been out on this site with Doug Strong, the parks director, and looking at the location of the future multi-use pathway. There is a pathway shown along the South Slough. However, in walking that area with him, we determined that it made the most sense in this location for the pathway to be developed on the south side and not the north. The South Slough pathway is not an issue for this subdivision, but will be for the property to the south. This pathway along Onweiler Lateral, since it is being built as a private pathway today by Silhouette and proposed here, is also an alternative route that that pathway could take. We are asking that a public easement be granted over this pathway. Residents in this subdivision that are trying to get to Settler's Park would, then, have a more direct route for pedestrians or bicycles that wanted to access the sidewalks to get up to the park that way. Item C is the reduced standards. We have delineated all of the reductions that they are requesting. The only real concern we had was with the street side setbacks to ten feet. The applicant did provide us with some illustrations showing how those would work. I will -- but in a conversation I had with the applicant just before the meeting, they may be rescinding that request, so it may not be an issue. I will hold that thought. Item D is the amenities. As mentioned, they are proposing the eight and a half percent open space, a tot lot, and the pathway along the Onweiler. The ordinance requires that the Commission review the proposed amenities and determine if they are appropriate to the size and uses of the proposed development and would just ask that you consider that in your findings or your motion tonight. Item E deals with stormwater detention and this is one that we will need to have addressed on the record tonight. They are proposing a stormwater lot near the South Slough in this location. It doesn't actually show up on the Landscape Plan with landscaping and that's something I will address in just a second. We have concerns given the shallow groundwater out there. Just as you heard with the Clearbrook Subdivision a month or so ago, that it's likely to have a requirement for sealing the base -- the bottom of the basin and not allow the storm water to percolate, so the wet pond issue we need to have addressed. Their engineer is -- seems confident that they can address it, much like Clearbrook, did with being able to discharge the water to the South Slough. I believe in this area they detected groundwater at about 3.7 feet. The requirement for sealing the bottom of those basins is if there is less than three feet to ground water, so that only gives them .7 feet for a swale, which isn't much. We will ask that they address that tonight. Item F -- we got two more and, then, I'm done. The existing trees -- did go out on the site. There are several existing trees in the center of the site where the existing homes are. There are also several existing trees along the South Slough. The Landscape Plan that they show does depict the existing trees along the South Slough to be retained. We concur that they need to be retained per the Landscape Ordinance. In order to remove the trees in the center of the site without mitigation, we will need to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 7 of 96 have written verification from the city arborist Elroy Huff that they are deemed hazard trees and can be removed without mitigation. Otherwise, mitigation would be required. I did speak with Elroy Huff. He went by the site and it appears that he will deem them as hazard trees that do not require mitigation. We will need to get in that writing, though, and have the applicant work with him to get that. Item G is the Landscape Plan. We have asked that this Landscape Plan be revised to depict the landscaping on the storm drainage lot, as well as showing the existing trees that are proposed to be removed and any that would be retained. With that, I think that I am done. I have a couple more slides to show you. One of our concerns was with the -- with the elevations that were provided with the Conditional Use Permit. We had some concerns as to whether they would really fit on the lots that they were proposing and the applicant has responded to that as well by showing -- this is just one sample, they had about five elevations, I haven't put them all in the presentation, for the detached. Then, this was an elevation of what the attached units would look like. They, then -- I had them pick a series of lots within the subdivision and -- that were typical of those within it and so I asked to see how the attached units would work on these two and they have shown with the lot lines and the setbacks they are proposing how it would fit on the lot. Then, a single 50-foot lot for a detached house and they have provided a Site Plan as to how that would work. Then, I picked one of the oddly shaped ones and asked them to show how that would work and they have done that as well. The rest of this deals with the site triangles and the side setbacks, which may not be an issue, so I will leave it at that and stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Yes. Steve, the footprints of the homes, that's based on the reduced setback requirements that they have requested correct? Siddoway: They have requested. Yes. Centers: This is probably not a big thing, but on Page 7, Item G at the bottom, you refer to see site-specific comment -- you say Number 5. I think you mean Number 8, don't you? Siddoway: Which page was that? Centers: Pardon? Siddoway: Which page? Centers: Page 7 Item G. Micropath. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 8 of 96 Siddoway: And their question is about the comment that it's referencing? Centers: Yes. At the end -- Siddoway: Oh, yes. It should say eight. Thank you. Centers: Okay. Then, similar to that, Page 12, Item C, you say see site-specific Condition Number 6 and I think you mean 7. Siddoway: That is correct, too. I think I must have added some after typing this. Centers: And would it be true on Page 13, Item F that -- see site-specific Condition Number 5 and 6 or just five? I see they are very similar. Siddoway: They are similar. Six is the one that's referenced in G, which is the revised Landscape Plan to depict those trees that are missing. You certainly could reference them both. It's -- the conditions themselves are all that really matter in the end on the motion, but -- Centers: Right. I understand. Right. Siddoway: F was referring to five with the trees and G was referring to six, which was the Landscape Plan, and it references the fact they needed to show those trees, so -- Centers: That's all I have. Borup: Okay. I have got a question maybe a little bit of a general nature, but it's something I was thinking about reading this, but it may be -- it does pertain to this, but also a lot of others, and that's the amount of applications we are having come through with a great amount of reduced standards and I -- and I realize maybe it depends on where it is and the city and staff are trying to encourage denser development close to city core and this is certainly in the city core, but has there been any thought to whether we need a new zoning standard? I mean we have got reduced lot sizes, reduced frontage, reduced setbacks, reduced minimum lot sizes -- maybe this is not the zoning that it needs if we were encouraging this type of housing. It sounds like there has been some discussion on this, maybe. Powell: Yes, Chairman, there has been and I haven't had the opportunity, of course, to discuss it with you or City Council yet, but we have talked about it in staff. We are seeing an awful lot of applications coming through with basically requesting R-8 zoning for the sole purpose of having reduced frontage and -- mostly reduced frontage requirements. They are still doing larger lots for like R-4 lots, but with R-8 standards, just for more flexibility. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 9 of 96 Borup: Right. We have seen those and I like the variety that that gives, you know, basically, an R-4 subdivision with R-8 zoning, and we have got some real variety by doing that. This is different here, though. Powell: Right. I think it is a reflection that the -- the standard blueprints that folks are using are going to a longer, narrower house and that the dimensional standards that we have got for some of those zones probably do need to be reevaluated. I have asked the Council to help me prioritize what all needs to be done. We have got a list of about 25 Zoning Ordinance Amendments and I suspect that you may all start to see a new rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance. I think that's where we are going with the City Council at this point. We would certainly reevaluate those and want your input on appropriate standards or some idea of what an appropriate reduction is for a PUD, if -- you know, what's the tradeoff that you want to see as far as the PUD. Right now it's the two amenities, maybe -- that's certainly something to consider in the future. Borup: So, there has not been consideration of another zoning destination, then? Powell: No. I think we need to do both. I think we need to look closely at all the dimensional standards for the Zoning Ordinance and also the PUD process to see what's appropriate in both locations. Are you suggesting like an R-6 zoning or something like that, or an R-12 or -- Borup: Well, yes, maybe -- yes, an R-10 or 12. I don't know. I just -- it just seems like we are getting an awful lot of request for reductions and I -- I don't know if that's concerned any of the other Commissioners or not or -- Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman -- Borup: We have got the standards. I mean -- Centers: Yes. Borup: And they have known -- everyone knows what it is before they start their project. Centers: They are complying. I think the reason you're seeing more of them -- the bottom line is the land cost and I think the developers will tell you that. I think if you do changes, that you should involve the developmental community in a hearing process. Powell: Of course. Centers: Because that's what's -- I think the next applicant will get up here and tell you that. They have got to get more bang for their buck, because the cost is going up and that -- Borup: Well, it goes up if someone is willing to pay for it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 10 of 96 Centers: Right. Borup: I mean if this ground had to be developed as an R-4 subdivision, they wouldn't be paying the same for an acre. I have no idea what they paid, but, you know, again, that's just -- that's a reality. All right. Well, as I said, that was maybe a general question, but I'm still wondering. Zaremba: Yes, but I sort of have gotten what I asked for. We had a discussion several months ago when there was the request to permanently change some of the side setbacks, I think, and I said why are we always chipping away at the R-4 zone, why not just ask for an R-8. Well, I have seen a lot more R-8's since, then, and sort of got what I wished for. Borup: Well, I like how a lot of -- Zaremba: But, now the R-8's are asking for reductions from that, so I certainly see your point. Borup: Okay. Anyone else have any questions or comments? Okay. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Ford: May I approach the Commission? Borup: Please. Yes. Ford: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. For the record, Ashley Ford, director of planning for Hubble Engineering at 701 South Allen Street in Meridian. I am here tonight representing Peter Harris and David Alcox of Harris Homes. Since staff has done such an excellent job of presenting the facts of the project this evening, I will just try to focus on the outstanding issues. One fact that I would like to add, however, is that this site in your Comprehensive Plan is medium density residential, which is that's why we went for the R-8 zone, just for that clarification. I will start with the special considerations for the Preliminary Plat on page seven of your staff report regarding item A, the nonbuild agreement that was originally requested by us. This is no longer an issue and, thus, we rescind this request and we will remove the note on the plat. Item B discusses the future right of way along Meridian Road and whether it is the intention of the applicant to donate the right of way to ACHD or not. At this time it is not the intention to donate and we will place the right of way into a separate lot for future dedication. Item C discusses the attached housing product, which we are showing in the light green as depicted on the handout that I have just given you. Because of the odd number of lots, we have decided to make Lot 6, Block 3, a detached residence due to the shape of the parcel. This residence will, however, resemble the other attached product, so it does not appear out of place. We will correct the notes on the plat to reflect this as a detached lot. Item D discusses the discrepancy in the acreage amount. Staff is correct in the acreage for the annexation of 16 acres, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 11 of 96 due to having to annex a portion of Meridian Road, and 15.68 acres for the Planned Development and the plat. A licensed surveyor has verified these acreages. Item E discusses the forthcoming encroachment agreement with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. I have spoke to John Anderson of the district and he has verbally accepted the small encroachment of anywhere from two to five feet along the southern and the eastern boundaries. Nampa-Meridian will not enter into an agreement until a site has a preliminary entitlement. We will have this agreement prior to submitting the Final Plat. Item F discusses the phasing of the project. At this time the applicant does plan on phasing the project by focusing on the detached product first, then, moving to the attached housing. We will provide a phasing plan prior to our City Council Hearing. Item G is in regards to the micropath on Lot 22, Block 3. Originally, we had an open space lot in this location, which encompassed the pathway as well. Due to the evaluation of our drainage, we moved that open space lot to Lot 15, Block 3. We are certainly agreeable to moving the pathway to the open space lot and we will make these changes to the plat and to the notes. Regarding site-specific Condition Number 12 on Page 8, we have submitted an updated groundwater study, dated September 2, 2003. According to the report, groundwater levels are generally just under feet along the South Slough to seven to eight feet along the northern portion of the property. All of our drainage area will be designed to retain water only during the 100-year event, not to exceed 24 hours, and with a three-to-one slope or less. We will not have any wet ponds within this development. The engineer on this project has spoken with Mr. Freckleton and has assured Bruce that we will meet all city standards regarding drainage and there shall not be any wet ponds. We will continue to work with the engineering department on this issue, now, to the special considerations for the Conditional Use. Item A on Page 12 of your staff report addresses the adjoining property owner's desire to not tile the Onweiler. The applicant is not in opposition to this. However, does not feel strongly enough to propose the same due to this being a violation of Nampa-Meridian's policies and your ordinance. However, if the Commission and the Council feel that it should be left open, we will comply. Item B discusses a need for a public easement along the Onweiler and the applicant has no objection. Item C discusses staff's concern regarding the proposed 10-foot side street setback. After an evaluation of our applicant, it has been determined that only a 15-side foot -- side street setback is needed and the request is rescinded. Item D discusses the proposed amenities. We feel that by extending Silhouette Subdivision pathway from the west, this is a great amenity for the walkers. We also envision that there will be young families within our development and, certainly, a tot lot will see quite a bit of use. Item E discusses storm water detention, which I have already addressed. Item F discusses the mature trees on the site. We will submit a revised Landscape Plan and we will continue to work with the Parks Department. Item G discusses the confusion over which lot had the tot lot. Since the initial application we have made some revisions and the tot lot will be on Lot 4, Block 5, as staff has presented to you. Staff is correct that Lot 15, Block 3, is to be utilized as a drainage lot and we will have a new Landscape Plan showing appropriate landscaping and I'm happy to address any other questions you may have. Centers: Mr. Chairman. Yes. It's Ford right? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 12 of 96 Ford: It is Ford. Centers: I think your last comment we will submit a new Landscape Plan that shows 10 percent open space correct? Ford: Actually -- Centers: Because -- do you agree with the staff that you're short or -- Ford: We are. We are required to provide two amenities. One of the amenities could be ten percent. We feel that we are providing the two other amenities with the pathway along the Onweiler, because that will be a private pathway, and with the tot lot. We are meeting that. If you feel we need to make up to the ten percent, I'm sure we could try to work that out, but we do feel like we are meeting the two amenities per the ordinance. Centers: Yes and, staff, you concur? Siddoway: Yes. The ordinance requires a minimum of five, plus two amenities. One of those amenities can be 10 percent open space, but the proposal that the applicant is making is between the five and 10 percent, plus the pathway and the tot lot. Centers: Okay, and we have that covered in the site-specific comments. Siddoway: It is. Centers: Good. Thank you. Zaremba: I would only ask about your willingness to tile or not tile the ditch along your north property line. Ford: We really -- Zaremba: Your plan is to tile it and, then, put a pathway over it. If you leave it open, then, you would need more space to accomplish the pathway. Ford: Actually, there is plenty of space with leaving it open, yes. Zaremba: Okay. All right. Borup: And I'm assuming -- my understanding from staff comment is just that it would look better to have them both consistent. Ford: Absolutely and we are certainly not -- Borup: And I think you'd probably agree with that, too. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 13 of 96 Ford: -- in opposition to that. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Ford: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone from the audience that would like to testify or ask any questions on this application? Come forward. Bothman: Hello. My name is Brian Bothman and we -- Borup: Could you state your address also? Bothman: 2877 Anston Avenue North. Borup: Okay. Bothman: Good evening, people. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak. Centers: Could you restate your name? Bothman: Brian Bothman. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Bothman. Bothman: Thank you. Can we back up on that line on the -- I guess it would be like the northwest -- northeast corner. We are about the third lot in straight back. Down two lots, that one right there and our concern is where the level of the ground is sitting now, it's probably a couple feet higher than where our yard sits at the present time. We are concerned with a two-story house possibly going in on that lot. If there was a two-story house -- I mean it would really be looking straight down into our backyard. We would like to see a little bit of privacy put in there, you know, maybe some trees or something that would accommodate the eight lots that are on our side of the South Slough. Borup: That was your only concern? Bothman: Well, it's -- Borup: Do you know what the width of that -- the South Slough is with your -- Bothman: It's -- down at the bottom of the slough it's probably -- Borup: No. I meant from property line to property line. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 14 of 96 Bothman: I don't know what their property line is. I'm going to take a guess at probably about 24 feet from where our back fence line is to -- I don't know if they are intending on building a fence across the back or -- Borup: The plat looks like it's about 50. Is that -- so I think there is about 50 feet from property line to property line? Bothman: Okay. It is quite a bit farther, then. We just don't have any idea where it is in that -- Borup: Which would -- yes. That would be understandable, because there is no -- I assume there is fence there or anything. Bothman: No. It's open. Centers: So, your concern is a two-story house looking down into your backyard? Bothman: Correct. Borup: Does any -- are there any two-story homes in your subdivision? Bothman: The only two-story home would be the one that's on the very north corner two houses in from us and that's that one right there. Borup: So, none of these homes along here or here have two stories looking into their neighbor's backyards? Bothman: Yes. There is -- three houses in from the other one that I just noted on the corner is a two-story house as well. Borup: I understand your concern, but -- Bothman: Along that back fence line there is none now, except for the one on the very corner. Borup: I can understand your concern, but, you know, your own subdivision doesn't have the same restrictions within it, so -- and it doesn't -- and those homes don't have a 50-foot separation. We will get an answer from the applicant. From the plans that we saw, it looked like most of them were planning on single stories, but I don't know if that's the intention on all of them or -- or if that was just the examples that they turned in. Bothman: Okay. Borup: Anything else? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 15 of 96 Bothman: No. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? We had one other -- at least one other signed up. Jennifer, did you still want to testify? Okay. Seeing no one else, is there final comments from the applicant? Ford: Again, for the record, Ashley Ford. You're correct, the slough is 50 feet from property line to property line. I have heard this Commission say before that developers or homebuilders should enjoy the benefits of the zone, especially when we ask for any residential zone. Therefore, we ask that we are allowed to have two-story homes. Whether or not there will be a two-story home on any of those lots, we don't know. That will be up to the individual homebuyers. We will have a mix of one and two-story homes. You have to also take into account within that, 50-foot from property line to property line on the slough there is also going to be a good size backyard as well. There is going to be quite a bit of separation. Other than that, I don't have anything to add and we just ask for your approval this evening. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission? A lot of times one of the concerns is that there is more lots on one side than the other. I notice this particular one is they are equal. Centers: Yes. Mr. Chairman. He mentioned the grade is like quite a bit higher in this parcel of land. Do you know anything about that, Ms. Ford? Are they going to lower the grade or do they have to or -- Ford: At this time it is not our intention to lower that, as far as I'm aware. We will learn a little bit more about that when we get to the Final Plat stage and start doing our actual construction drawings. At this time I'm not aware of that. Centers: How long has the adjoining subdivision been there where Mr. Bothman lives? Ford: To be honest with you, I think the mid '90s, but I can't speak to that for 100 percent truth. Centers: Okay. Borup: It sounds about right. Centers: Yes. Thank you. Ford: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners? Are there any other comments from staff? Centers: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the applicant, per my notes, has said they will comply with all of the staff requirements. They aren't asking staff to back up on Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 16 of 96 anything, so I think it's a good partial in-fill after the parcel below it gets developed, if ever, but -- and I think it will supply a need for some -- possibly more -- or less expensive housing. Zaremba: And I think they have been creative with a very odd-shaped piece of property here and that took some major thinking to figure out a way to use it. I'm sensitive to the idea of the one neighbor who has testified that was worried about a two-story home, but I do agree that they should have the opportunity to use the zone that they have asked for. It's just as likely that a single story house would be built there anyhow, so I'm not particularly inclined to add that as a requirement. Other than that, I think it's a good project. Centers: Well -- and I would concur and I think you could take the 50-foot width of the canal and, then, the -- Mr. Bothman's backyard and the backyard of a new resident, you're probably looking at closer to 90 feet. I think it's going to be quite a distance for someone to -- you know, I don't think it's physically possible, but I could be wrong. Borup: Question for staff. Are we straight on -- I'm looking at the table, the requested setback table. Are we clear on -- what are we talking about in this application 15 feet on the side now that is understood? Siddoway: That's the standard requirement. What I would do is address that in site- specific Comment Number 7 on Page 14 and just reduce -- just modify that to say that the street side setbacks will not be reduced from the ordinance. Borup: Okay. Are we assuming anything else on the chart that they submitted, any other standards that they requested? I don't believe I really had any other specific questions, other than maybe clarification. I think there was a couple of typos, but -- Siddoway: Yes. There is really no other problems that -- Borup: Like it says the R-8 standard has a 30-foot -- which is not correct. Siddoway: Yes. The -- Borup: Well, I'm looking at their letter, not at the -- Siddoway: Okay. Borup: Is that on the plat? Siddoway: Yes. I'm looking on the face of the plat. Borup: I guess that would really be what would count, wouldn't it? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 17 of 96 Zaremba: Are you looking at the latest one? I have one received by the Clerk on August 21st . Borup: I was looking at their submittal chart. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I would clarify -- Borup: On the side setbacks? Siddoway: Side setbacks are requested at five feet and that is the standard for the zone, so that's really not -- Borup: Well, then, it says under attached it says zero. I'm assuming that's on the attached side, not on the other side. Siddoway: Right. Borup: Is that just an automatic assumption that's made? Siddoway: Well, I think we -- you can clarify that, but I think that is fine. They will still have a five-foot setback on the -- to the side that's not attached. Borup: Right. Siddoway: For the front setbacks, they are requesting 15 feet and the ordinance requirement is for -- allows for 15-foot setbacks for living areas only. You may want to clarify that garages still have to meet the 20-foot setback. Living areas are allowed by ordinance to encroach within 15 feet. I don't see any other issues. Borup: Okay. Commissioners, are we ready for a motion? Rohm: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Well, first of all, we still have got a Public Hearing open, but go ahead, Commissioner. Rohm: I have one question for staff. They had said that they didn't think it was going to be phased in and, then, the applicant spoke to phasing this project in. Does staff have any problem with the phasing suggested? Siddoway: No problem. We just need it to be depicted on the Preliminary Plat as approved. As long as they meet the requirement -- that is the last site-specific comment, Number 10 on Page 14, that they submit the revised plat and Landscape Plan at least 10 days prior to the next hearing. They show the phasing and take care of the notes other things as noted in the report, that wouldn't be a problem. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 18 of 96 Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Centers: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Centers. Centers: Yes. Would prepare to make a motion on -- Borup: Okay. We still have a hearing open. Centers: Yes. That's true. Well, let me move that we close it. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Zaremba: Covering all three items? Borup: I'm sorry. Was that in your motion, all three hearings? Centers: Five, six, and seven. Borup: Okay. Again, all in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Now, I'll make the motion. On Item Number 5, AZ 03-019, request for annexation and zoning of -- corrected to 16 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Highgate Sub by Harris Homes, LLC, at 2700 North Meridian Road, including all staff comments from their memo dated September 2nd . End of motion. Zaremba: Second Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I would also like to make the motion to approve and recommend approval to the City Council on Item 6, PP 03-023, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 74 building lots and 10 other lots on a corrected 15.068 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Highgate Sub by Harris Homes, LLC, at 2700 North Meridian Road, including all staff comments as amended. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, it's 15.68, not .068. Centers: So noted. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 19 of 96 Borup: Does that conclude your motion? Centers: Yes. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second -- Centers: Well, no, including all staff comments -- and I'm not done. Borup: Okay. Centers: We have to amend a little bit here. Borup: That's what I -- that's what I was wondering. Zaremba: No. He was just going on. Centers: Page 8, Item 8t, the applicant will shift the micropath to the area recommended by the staff near the drainage lot. Then, the 10 feet is acceptable. Those are the only notes I have on the site-specific comments and -- so end of motion, unless someone sees something else. Zaremba: I would only comment that I would reference that we are referring to their plat version received by the Clerk August 21, 2003. Centers: The what? Zaremba: We had several revised plats. The latest one is August 21st . Centers: So noted. That's the one we are referring to. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? You know, I did have one notation and I don't know if this is redundant or not and that was Item 8 -- or Item 9 for the staff. It talks about that sidewalk shall be constructed with a detached sidewalk. Aren't the sidewalks already in? Siddoway: They are in, so I guess you could strike that requirement. If they are already in as attached, we won't make them be modified. Borup: Okay. I thought they were in the whole mile. Siddoway: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 20 of 96 Borup: Okay, and the applicant didn't mention that either. Zaremba: I do have a discussion question. About the setbacks, is this a Preliminary Plat issue or a CUP issue that the garage setback should remain at 20? Siddoway: That would be a CUP issue. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: That's where the setbacks are discussed. Borup: But that's also in -- it's already in the ordinance stating that, too, in the R-8 zone with a CUP. Centers: The CUP because it's a PUD. Borup: Right R-8 with a PUD. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: I think that would be good to clarify that, but yes. Centers: So, staff, you're saying strike Item 9? I mean it's redundant. If the sidewalks are in, they don't have to put in double, right? Siddoway: It could be stricken. Yes. Centers: Okay. We would strike Item 9 on Page 8 as part of the motion. Borup: Okay. Thank you. I kind of interrupted that motion, but are complete -- I mean did that get everything? Zaremba: The second accepts the amendment. Borup: All right. Motion and second. Any other discussion? All in favor. Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Okay. Continuing on. I would like to recommend approval on Item 7 on our agenda, CUP 03-039, request for Conditional Use Permit for single-family residential Planned Development with a mix of attached and detached housing in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Highgate Sub by Harris Homes, LLC, at 2700 North Meridian Road. Including all staff comments and as amended. Page 14, Item 7, it should be noted that -- or could be noted within that paragraph that the applicant will comply with the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 21 of 96 standards for the side street setbacks, which are 15 feet. The applicant -- in that same paragraph it could be noted that they will comply with the front setbacks for garages, which is 20 feet. Other than the open space -- and we have talked about that, they are doing the micropath, that's all I saw on the site-specific. Anyone else see anything else? End of motion. Zaremba: I'll second it. Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 8. Public Hearing CUP 03-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for shell and core for multi-floor medical office building in an L-O zone for Meadow Lake Village Medical Office by Hummel Architects, P.A. – east of North Eagle Road and south of East Franklin Road: Borup: Thank you. That does conclude the Public Hearing on that project. Item Number 8, Public Hearing CUP 03-040, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for shell and core for multi-floor medical office building in an L-O zone for Meadow Lake Village medical office. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The proposed project for the Meadow Lake Village Medical office is in the Meadow Lake Village Project, formerly known as Touchmark, south of Franklin, between there and the freeway, and just east of St. Luke's and -- north and east, I guess. The subject property for the proposed medical office building is just northeast of the existing hospital facility on the St. Luke's property. It is surrounded by Montvue Subdivision on the north and -- sorry. On the west and to the north and east is surrounded by other properties within the Touchmark project. This is a site photo. It's, actually, a few years old now and St. Luke's complex has been expanded from this. We have the proposed Site Plan, which sits the medical office building down in the southwest corner of the site, surrounded by parking and landscaping. The Landscape Plan did not scan very well, but this is a copy of the revised Landscape Plan. We also have the building elevations. I would note that they are proposing a 98,000 square foot medical office building, shell and core. It does have five stories of habitable office space and, then, a -- up on the roof there is a small mechanical penthouse that would house mechanical equipment as well. The project sits on 5.96 acres, just under six acres, and the maximum height of this building, which is the -- probably the main item for discussion tonight, is 85 feet. The L-O zone maximum is 35 feet. They are requesting, through the Planned Development that they have submitted, to be allowed to exceed the building height. For comparison, I have stated what the adjacent St. Luke's Hospital is at 108.67 feet tall. It is one additional story tall. It has six stories of habitable space, plus a seventh for the mechanical equipment at St. Luke's. That gives you a feel for the scale in comparison. Basically, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 22 of 96 one floor smaller. You should have a recently revised Site Plan. I was able to incorporate it into the staff report. It was dated August 26th -- or stamped into the record on August 26th . The main difference -- there is three main differences between the revised Site Plan that they submitted and the original one that was provided with the application and I'll go over those. The first item is there is a pedestrian walkway in the center of the parking lot that connects to the front of the building. That landscape island was widened from ten feet wide to 14 feet wide, so that they could accommodate planters, in addition to the walkway that would provide trees along it. They gained that extra footage by reducing the adjacent stalls by two feet and staff is in support of that modification. The second change that they made in the revised plan was originally they had shown access to Touchmark Way over here on the east side of the project. They have modified that to take the access from Louise Drive and the third modification is down on the south. They are connecting from their project to the St. Luke's Drive and, originally, this was a wider, less defined space. We had asked them to help define it by extending down and clarifying if the existing curbs along the south portion of that were going to be removed and they did verify that they are to be removed. Their modification of this exactly matches the design of St. Luke's Drive and its current configuration with the center island. There are basically four items in the special considerations for discussion on Page 5. The first, as already noted, is the building height. The second is the stall depth and the permission to reduce those stalls by two feet and staff does support that. Number 3 is the fire lane. Due to the height of the building, the Fire Department has requested that all fire lanes within the project be 26 feet wide to meet new International Fire Code and the proposed Site Plan does meet that requirement. They have been talking with Joe Silva through the process. Then, the last item, Number 4, is cross-access. Since they are proposing to take access on the south to and from St. Luke's Drive, we request that they submit a copy of the recorded cross- access agreement prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance for the project. With that I will stand for any questions. We do recommend approval of the project, as long as the Commission is in favor or finds in favor of those four items. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I had a couple questions and, of course, Steve, you saw the letter from St. Luke's. They are in agreement on using their private drive, so I don't think that's a problem. Siddoway: Right. Centers: Could St. Luke's technically go higher if they wanted, as some hospitals do, they go up? Siddoway: They would have to get approval for it. They got a -- they received approval for the 108.67 feet that they proposed through the Conditional Use process. Centers: Yes. Siddoway: In order to go higher, they would have to get approval. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 23 of 96 Centers: But technically, it's possible. It's possible. Siddoway: It's possible. It's not just granted as of right, though. Centers: Right. Page 6, Item 1, we have had this issue before. You're saying 85 feet tall. I think, for the record -- and the applicant should know how we measure that. You mentioned a penthouse where the equipment is. Does the 85 feet include that? Are we measuring from level ground or -- you know, I think we need to define those 85 feet. Does it go to the tip of an antenna that's on top or -- you know. Siddoway: Let's have the applicant address that. I know that the building code has 85 feet as its maximum for the type of construction that they are proposing, so they are going to have to comply with that as well and I think the applicant can speak to that. Centers: Good. Borup: So, you're saying the definition should be in the building code, too. Siddoway: Yes. Centers: Okay. That's all I had. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Did -- are the -- the special considerations are not necessarily considered part of the condition of approval; is that correct? Siddoway: That's correct. Borup: Do we have a cross-access agreement in the conditions of approval? Siddoway: Yes. It's Number 3. It says at the end of -- Borup: I kept skipping over that. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Does the applicant have anything they'd like to add to the presentation? Butler: Thank you, Commissioners and Chairman. I'd like to submit a -- Borup: State your name and address for the record. Butler: My name is Jason Butler with Hummel Architects, 2785 Bogus Basin Road in Boise, representing Touchmark and Meadow Lake Village. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Butler: I'd like to submit for the record -- and, Mr. Siddoway, are we able to project -- Siddoway: Yes. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 24 of 96 Butler: What I have just passed out is the original concept development the plan for the project as a whole. As you know, Meadow Lake Village is approximately 140 acres in its totality. This was recently approved by yourself and the City Council. The project site is -- was identified originally as medical office building and this is the location of that. It's approximately within 300 feet of the existing hospital. It's a five-story building, 85-foot height, does include that mechanical equipment in that penthouse. We are bound by the building code with the construction type and the occupancy type of the building to not exceed that 85 feet and we don't intend to, but just to clarify, that does take into account that parapet height. Centers: Thank you. Butler: If we could go to the rendering, that perspective image. This is a little cleaner than looking straight on at that black and white elevation. This is a recent perspective of the building. It's strictly a medical office building, five stories, and high quality materials. You see on the ground floor is a CMU concrete masonry unit veneer. The second, third and fourth floor are a brick veneer similar to St. Luke's construction. Then, the fifth floor level, the entry element, the stair towers on the ends, is a stucco system. It's a high quality building. Very attractive. If we could go to the architectural site real quick. I wanted to point out that Touchmark Meadow Lake Village does have a self-imposed overage of the city's required 12 parking spaces per island. If you note that there is ten spaces per island. The site is approximately just under six acres with -- including the berm between the existing Montvue Subdivision and our site is about 20 to 22 percent landscaped area. Excluding the berm it's approximately 18 percent landscaped area. If I could submit and we could project, I have got a little bit cleaner copy of the Landscape Plan. That's a bit cleaner and I think your copies are a little easier to read there. The existing -- or the proposed roadway connection to the existing St. Luke's road, as staff had mentioned, the width of that does match up -- the design, the detailing of that does match up with St. Luke's road. You start to see a pedestrian walkway develop across the front of the building that will potentially tie through to the development as it continues. The reduction of the parking stall depth from 19 -- the minimum 19 feet -- the required 19 feet to 17 feet is to enhance that amenity a bit more. We are impacting 40 spaces right in the center of the project. Those spaces are the most readily available or accessible into the front of the building. The tie to Louise versus the original tie that we had indicated when the applicant originally came in, off of Touchmark, just brings you into the center of the site a little bit more as it develops, follows -- if you note on there, it follows the concept development plan a little bit close -- more closely than the other connection would have. I have got some additional photos of the -- of the site if you would like to see those, if it would help clarify, the -- I don't -- Borup: I think we are probably okay, unless any other Commissioners have any questions. Butler: Yes. With the precedence of St. Luke's, they were constructed on the similar zone, an L-O zone, as the Touchmark property, the precedence set with that project, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 25 of 96 where we aren't running up to the height that that project does, we feel that we fall within -- within that limitation. If you notice on the architectural Site Plan and the larger scale plans that you do have, we have indicated the major access ways for the Fire Department and worked very closely with Joe Silva to identify where those 26 foot wide drive aisles would need to be. The Building Department has been working very closely to make sure the code requirements are met there as far as the construction of the building. Borup: Now, were there any -- any comments you had, anything in the staff recommendation? You're in agreement with all of the conditions? Butler: We are completely fine. I wanted to point out that the Landscape Plan was updated earlier this week and just to clarify that the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District had a confusion. We can provide clarification of that to you, that the application came through and identified Meadow Lake Village -- they were used to seeing Touchmark and that was their -- their only comment to the project. Borup: Okay. Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Centers: The only question or comment, Mr. Butler, is did you see the Sanitary Service notes or comments and you got that covered? Butler: Yes. Centers: Okay. You're going to have your dumpsters hidden and very professional? Butler: Yes. If we could slide that up, Steve. Yes. They are located right in that -- in that corner. If you notice, there is two main entries into the building on the north and south side, more service-type entries at the stair towers of the employees of the buildings, the doctors that will be employed in the building and have practices in the building so, the dumpster is located -- Centers: Well, he felt two wasn't going to be enough. Butler: The minimum size. Centers: Yes. Butler: Yes. We will -- we coordinated earlier on, approximately two months ago, and we will get that coordinated and clarified prior to Council. Zaremba: One very minor thing. Your access road, which has been the St. Luke's loop, this is now going to function as a T intersection, I would assume. Would you be willing to put up maybe a small sign here or there with an arrow indicating that people need to turn left to access Eagle or I-84? Just a directional sign I think would be helpful. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 26 of 96 Butler: That would be -- you bet. Yes. I wanted point out, now that you mention it, there will be a district monumentation sign. We have got a planned signed program that was accepted by the Planning and Zoning Department as part of the project and the first district monumentation sign will be located near this entry point, so -- Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Thank you, Mr. Butler. Butler: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone here to testify on this? We have had no one sign up. Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: Looks good. Zaremba: Sounds good to me. Borup: And I'm assuming the neighbors must have been fine with it, because they have been here on every other one, so -- Centers: Yes. I'm surprised, Mr. Chairman. Zaremba: I have kind of a curiosity question for staff. In an office building like this of this size, does this zoning allow them to have some kind of concession stand, cafeteria, or anything in there? There is going to be a lot of employees in there. Is that acceptable? Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Zaremba, there are provisions that allow for accessory uses. A lot of those uses, even if they aren't exactly allowed in the zone, they can be deemed accessory uses to a medical office building, given the size. There is a number of standards that I need to evaluate and determining accessory uses, things such as is it reasonable given the size of the principal permitted use, is it traditionally associated with the principal use. I think that you could -- the examples that you cited you could make that determination that those were accessory uses to the office building. Zaremba: Good. That would just be a staff approval? Okay. Borup: Anything else? Centers: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move we close the Public Hearing. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 27 of 96 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: And a motion? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, CUP 03-040, request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for shell and core for a multi-floor medical office building in an L-O zone for Meadow Lake Village Medical Office by Hummel Architects, PA. East of North Eagle Road and south of East Franklin Road, to include all staff comments of their memo transmittal date August 29th , received by the Clerk September 2, 2003, and this is referring to their Preliminary Plat received by the Clerk August 26, 2003. Borup: Anybody want to second that? Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor. Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Mr. Butler, would you like some of these -- Siddoway: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Yes. Siddoway: Just one clarification. Commissioner Zaremba referenced the plat received on August 26th , but that, actually, is the Site Plan for the Conditional Use Permit. Zaremba: Oh. Preliminary Site Plan. Siddoway: Maybe just note that. Zaremba: It does say Site Plan right on it in big letters. Item 9. Public Hearing: AZ 03-018 Request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 +/- acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler / Cobbs / Eagy / Ruwe by BRS Architects – southwest corner and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Borup: Okay. Next item is Public Hearing AZ 03-018, request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 acres from RT to C-G zones -- that's probably -- is that supposed to be RUT? For Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy, Ruwe project by BRS Architects. This is at the southwest corner and the southeast corner of Eagle Road and Ustick. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and start with the staff report. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 28 of 96 Powell: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I am subbing for Brad tonight, so, hopefully, I won't -- I'll do him justice. This is a straight request for annexation and zoning. There is no development proposal tied to this request. This is something that the city has traditionally not approved, but we think we have come to some recommendations on a way that they could safely do that and I will get to those in a moment. The reason that they haven't traditionally approved them without development -- or without a development plan is partly related to the status that our Comprehensive Plan has in relationship to our zoning ordinance in the state. It's kind of a statewide thing. In states where the Comprehensive Plan carries more weight, it isn't uncommon to see land pre-zoned, basically, you know, once the Comprehensive Plan goes through, if an area said mixed use, they'd zone it mixed used, or if it said commercial, they'd zone it commercial, but we don't tend to do that here in Idaho, because the zoning carries much more weight than the actual Comprehensive Plan does. The applicant's desire is to get this zoned, so that they can market it more effectively, to be able to say that it does have commercial zoning on it and we appreciate that fact and we have tried to work with it. What we have done is gone through the Comprehensive Plan and pulled out several of those policies that would pertain to the properties and suggested that they be put in the Development Agreement with the -- signed by all the owners and I should state -- should back up a bit, shouldn't I? We are dealing with all the parcels outlined in the dark outline, of course. This is the actual Kissler property. There are two properties -- or three properties here on owned by Eagy. I hope I'm not getting that too wrong and one on the corner here, which is Kennevick, and then Ruwe is down here, these two parcels right there. Centers: So, we are looking at two parcels across the road from each other? Powell: Yes, sir and -- Centers: Regardless of who owns them? Powell: Correct. They're all -- it encompasses the south -- the south portion along Eagle Road -- or south of Ustick on both sides of Eagle Road. They -- the property lines or the annexation lines would -- of the combine properties meet at the centerline of Eagle Road. There was some small discrepancy in the acreages, but I believe the staff report adequately describes that. Did want to point out that there are residential uses adjoining these properties over here. This is Carol Sub. There are residential uses here. These properties will -- we have already been talking to people about similar type of requests for annexation on this property here and we will likely see it there as well. The south end of this property does adjoin a request we have in now for a Preliminary Plat, it's called Red Feather. I believe that comes to you later this month or in October later this month. Centers: Two weeks. Powell: I want to go through, in particular, the Comprehensive -- the finding that you have to make for the annexation and zoning Finding A. This is the one that really has Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 29 of 96 the meat of some of the -- our issues of concern. For example, all development within this designation, the mixed-use area designation, will occur only under the Conditional Use Permit process, except the mixed-use regional areas. A CU application would not be needed for developments within the mixed-use regional area, unless a project lies 300 feet of an existing residence or school or a CUP is otherwise required per ordinance. Again, with regard to this group of properties on the west side of Eagle Road, they do adjoin residential properties, so because we are considering just the C-G zone -- now, the C-G would, basically, allow commercial uses, not the mixed use that the Comprehensive Plan calls for, and that is our concern. As you see as we go down the next one, where feasible, multi-family residential uses will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to Highways 20-26, 55 or 69. That's, obviously, applicable in this area. We do anticipate it will be an employment center and it is a state -- Eagle Road is a state highway. With just the C-G zoning, residential uses could only be requested as part of a Planned Development where they were asking for it as a 20 percent use exception. That was a concern of staff. Moving down to the next Comp Plan policy. Where mixed-use developments are phased, a conceptual Site Plan for the entire mixed use area in encouraged with the development application or, depending on the scope of the development, prior to formal development application being submitted. This was one of the requirements that we did move to the conditions of approval, that they do enter into -- they do prepare a concept plan for this entire property. Again, we are focusing on the west side, because of the ownership pattern where there isn't a single owner. We were concerned about that one in particular. Moving on one more policy there. Where the project is developed adjacent to low or medium density residential uses, a transitional use is encouraged. Again, we do have low-density residential uses here on this border with Carol Subdivision. Okay. Moving down to Page 5 now. Eagle Road is the major north south arterial in Ada County. The capacity of this arterial should be protected by minimizing cuts. We have been working with ITD on that and I think that it's clear why that should be continued. What we are asking that they show in their concept plan is a backage road that basically parallels Eagle Road. It might come in at this section and come over that way, something where this traffic would make use of that backage road to gain access to Eagle Road or -- in particular to Eagle Road. Locate new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a way to compliment with adjoining residential areas. This does have a frontage on two arterial roadways. If these are -- uses are controlled, they could compliment these -- the adjoining residential uses and we are proposing to control that, again, through the conceptual use plan development process. I think that's enough torture for now. Brad's other issue of concern was Finding J and that is the proposed Zoning Amendment in the best interest of the City of Meridian. At this point staff feels that with the proposals we made that it would be in the interest of the City of Meridian to go ahead and let them pre-zone at this time. With the understanding that they are well aware of the Comprehensive Plan policies that apply on the property and what the city is looking for in regard to the development of that property. I'll leave staff's discussion at that. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 30 of 96 Centers: Yes, Mr. Chairman, as always. You're saying on Page 8, Number 3 that you want them to come back with a CUP for every development period, even though the C- G zone shows permitted for a lot of different uses? Even if it's a permitted use, you want them to come back? Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, that was, actually, their proposal. I think that staff would be happy if they did a Planned Development on the whole property and, then, we establish those uses that would be allowed, if they were allowed uses. I don't think staff has any problem -- actually, I think staff would prefer not to have to see Conditional Use Permits on permitted uses. Again, that was the original request of the -- Centers: I would agree with it the way it's written, because if you look at some of the permitted uses, I don't think I would want to see them there. If you look in the zoning book under some of the permitted use, there are a number of them that I don't think I would want to see there. Powell: I would agree, but I think that if we had a Planned Development on the whole property that established what the uses would be on that property or the range of uses, then, those that were permitted could or can be allowed to develop. Centers: But we are not going to require that and we don't have that. Powell: I believe we do have that. Centers: Where at? Borup: You're talking about a concept plan, but I think -- Centers: And I had that on my notes. You mentioned you would like a concept plan, which we have seen before, and a concept is simply that a concept, and we have seen them change. In fact, we have seen them changed in the application just prior to this one in Meadow Lake. They had a concept and they changed it. They came back and changed it so, do you really think a concept plan is going to help you? Powell: Well, they came back with a new Planned Development, so they did have to go through that same process of the condition, and perhaps our misunderstanding -- it does say that the Conditional Use Permit -- perhaps the applicant can verify. I thought that when we were referencing it in that first condition, that we meant a CU for a Planned Development, but perhaps we could clarify that. Borup: Well, in my mind part of the concern was this is -- the Comprehensive Plan calls for mixed-use, so if we go a straight C-G zone -- Centers: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 31 of 96 Borup: -- we are no longer talking about a mixed-use, so -- even with a C-G zone and coming through the Conditional Use, you could still get a mixed-use development there. At least a mixture of types, but -- Centers: That's why I agree. You know, if they are going to come in and be annexed with a C-G zone, then, I agree, they should come back each and every development. Powell: With a -- do you want a conditional concept plan for the entire one and, then, a CU for each subsequent one, for each detailed -- Centers: I would, yes. If they are going to get a C-G zone wouldn't you agree, Keith? Powell: Yes. That's -- basically, that's what the Planned Development requires. Centers: Right. Borup: On a Planned Development, but if the conceptual plan could be changed -- Centers: Yes. Borup: -- what difference does it make? Centers: I don't necessarily -- unless staff wants it, I don't care about it. Borup: It depends on how much it's going to change. Centers: Yes. Borup: The previous one you have referenced the roads didn't change, they stayed the same location and -- you know, they did one building, instead two, but it's not a -- Centers: Well, they are going to come in with a concept, they are going to say we are going to have a restaurant here and we plan a little store in this corner. You know, that's all going to change when they get a buyer for a specific lot, you know, and the user, whether it's a long-term lease or a build to suit. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Centers, I think that the idea for the concept plan was particularly important here. We didn't want this property, in particular, to come through with a Conditional Use Permit request without considering how access would be provided to all these -- how cross-access would function and the backage road and getting access. I think that the concept plan in that area was particularly needed to address those cross-access issues. Borup: I agree with that and that was the other question I had -- and I realize, again, this is just an annexation and zoning, but access points was not really discussed, which Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 32 of 96 may be premature without a plat. You did make reference to the Eagle Road -- I don't know the exact wording, but the Eagle Road study and that does talk about number of access points along the mile. Powell: Yes, it does. You're right, that is something we can't consider at this time and you're hitting on a lot of the reasons why the city hasn't traditionally done these, so -- Borup: Right. Well, I think it may not be -- it may be appropriate for the applicant to know what we may expect and -- especially, due to the fact there is property to the south. I have -- my idea on development of Eagle Road is it's a frontage road the whole way, pretty much. Centers: I agree, but we are too late. Borup: Well, we are too late on the residential area, but we are not -- we haven't approve anything else, other than one project, and that was discussed at that time. They had one access point for that third of a mile or whatever it was. I'm assuming ITD is putting their feelings forward on this. Are they still committed to follow the Eagle Road study as far as their recommendations from three years ago, whenever it was? Powell: My understanding is that they are looking, yes, at frontage roads and -- or alternative access at some other point, restricting access to frontage roads. I recent -- just so you know, I recently wrote a letter to them regarding Chinden Boulevard that asked them to require backage roads, because that's what we had been seeing on the plats that we have been approving that were up there. Staff and some members of the Council have expressed to me that there is not a desire to see a frontage road right next to the highway. That's why staff went with the backage road on Chinden. Now, Eagle is a little -- it's different at this point, so it may be appropriate -- Borup: Well, in my mind, whether it's frontage or backage, as long as there are not additional access points, it maybe doesn't make a lot of difference. Powell: And ITD is very much wanting to go that way. Borup: On the access points? Powell: With restricting the access points and having some other form of access, yes. Borup: Okay. Any other comments, Commissioners? Zaremba: I guess my question is are -- my biggest concern at the moment is the east border -- or west border, I mean, being C-G right up against the residential. Are we solving that we would have to have future review of anything that was along there as -- you know, with a concept plan and with a CUP for every individual use and the warning to the applicant that we are not looking for -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 33 of 96 Powell: Perhaps the only thing that we may not solve is that if they use -- if they are required to use only the 20 percent use exception to get the residential within the projects, then, they may or -- you may be at a point where they need to go beyond that. We probably could address that now if you wanted to see more than 20 percent residential or you wanted to insure that there was residential -- transitional residential uses adjoining Carol Subdivision, then, that would -- is possibly the one thing that we haven't yet addressed. Borup: But the staff report did talk about a transitional use along the property. Zaremba: Yes. Borup: So, you're saying -- I guess that's assuming there will be the residential -- I mean the transition would be some type of residential. Centers: Or office would be my -- correct? Or office? Zaremba: L-O uses. Powell: Yes. L-O provides a good transition also. Centers: Right. Right. Borup: And we may get some input from the neighbors on what they -- Zaremba: I'm comfortable that the projects that are on the other side of Ustick are going to be similar, probably C-G, that they, themselves, are their own project on the opposite side of Eagle. I'm not too worried about the things that face Ustick or face Eagle I'm worried about the things that back up to Carol Subdivision. Borup: I agree and I think that's what staff was emphasizing, they had the same concern. Zaremba: Just because I always have off-the-wall questions, this combined on both sides of the road is 43.86 acres. Off the top of your head do you know what Crossroads -- Powell: Crossroads Center? Zaremba: How many acres is that? I'm just trying to scope this in my mind. Borup: More than that by quite a bit. Powell: Crossroads looks like it's probably 80 to 100 acres. Zaremba: Twice this. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 34 of 96 Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Billy Ray Strite, 1010 Allante, Boise, Idaho. First of all, I'd like to thank Brad for the help in this application. We went round and around and, quite frankly, we are very pleased with the staff's support of the -- and its positive recommendation. I think they are noting that the application does, in fact, meet all the criteria for annexation, in that we are contiguous to the city, we do have city services, and we do meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. I think one of the things I would like to point out to the Commission is that in our mind these sites, because of the configuration, the traffic, and the signalization, the projects that go on these sites are going to totally be market driven, in my opinion. You're going to be looking at major -- not only national, but regional tenants here. I spoke to ITD today and their latest car count south of Ustick Road was 36,000 cars a day. However, staff said they thought that that's probably been increased to some 25 percent today's counts. They are suggesting that it's closer to 50,000 -- just somewhat shy of 50,000 cars a day. ACHD, on other hand, has Ustick Road scheduled for five lanes, 30,000 cars a day. I think those numbers really make it very attractive to a larger type user and probably less attractive, quite frankly, to any residential type uses. I mean having said that, we are not totally opposed to such a thing, but, in my mind, I think that through the Conditional Use process -- and I'd like to follow up on Commissioner Center's comment relative to why we suggested -- or why the suggestion was made to have all Conditional Uses, regardless of the use within the C-G zone. I'd like to remind you that I think it was Councilman -- gosh, I'm trying to recall which Councilman -- when we did Treasure Valley Business Center. If you recall, it was requested of us to bring each and every use back to that -- of that site as a Conditional Use, because at that particular time in the I-L zone, there was not specific uses identified. We had not identified specific uses and, thus, we thought that this, perhaps, would be very consistent with his original thinking. That when we come in to do this particular annexation, we would, in turn, also ask for a Conditional Use, which would allow not only this Commission, but the City Council to, once again, review any and all uses, regardless of the use on any particular parcel there. I would also like to suggest that we are very pleased with the staff report, but there is one concern that I think is in Condition Number 3. It would appear to me that the Development Agreement, if, in fact, it is necessary and essential, it might be a little premature, again, considering the market-driven situation. We believe that it might be better served that at the time of Conditional Use a Development Agreement would, then, in fact, if necessary and requested, would be appropriate, as opposed to hooking the Development Agreement to the annexation and that's specific, as staff has mentioned, to the southwest corner. At this particular point in time all four of those particular individuals have been asked and, actually, have had offers made on their parcels, but until such time as this ground is zoned, there has been no transaction. What I'm proposing here -- or what they are proposing is at the time this is annexed and annexed to a zone appropriate, which we believe by Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The fact that this is mixed-use regional allowing the C-G zone, that each and every use could come back before you and could be scrutinized more closely on their individual merits, so -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 35 of 96 Borup: Mr. Strite, would you anticipate that at that time it would be under one ownership, then, or -- you're alluding to that or you don't know? Strite: Mr. Chairman, I -- if I had that kind of crystal ball, I certainly wouldn't be drawing the cartoons I'd probably be owning the property. My guess is that if, in fact, what we are seeing today in the market place and the -- Borup: I don't mean the -- you know, one major tenant, I'm saying one ownership of the property. Strite: Mr. Chairman, my guess is that ultimately that's probably a very high potential. You bet. I think if you look at the individual parcels, just by the fact of their frontage to depth ratios, it would be exceptionally difficult in any case, with the exception of Cobbs parcel on the corner and part of the Eagy parcel along the Ustick frontage, to develop in any other way. I mean the depth to width ratio there is minimal and, consequently -- and I think, also, the staff brings up a good point. However -- and I think Chairman Borup did mention this and that has to do with restricted access onto Eagle Road. The majority of the accesses, as you well know, have already been deeded by virtue of the ITD takes, so those accesses are set. This access will be used primarily to create, in my belief, anyway, a master plan ultimately of all four of those parcels. At this particular point in time I think that's premature and I think the Development Agreement suggesting that a concept plan, which you alluded to, can be changed continually until we finally come to grips with what's actually there. Again, I make reference to Treasure Valley Business Center, the Krispy Kreme, we did that, what, four times -- you're going to see next month the Wendy's, Starbuck's, those are under Conditional Use. We have a retail facility, which normally would not require a Conditional Use, but we are coming back to you so you can scrutinize not only the building type, use, the landscaping, how it ties with the remainder of the existing center. To make a short question a long answer, I do believe that ultimately that's probably going to happen, yes. Borup: And how -- and the way I read the staff report, I believe there is only really two main concerns. One is the buffering to the west and the other is interconnectivity within the project. Strite: And I think those are very strong concerns and, quite frankly, that would be one of the first things that would have to be addressed under the Conditional Use. There is no question that there is going to be a transitional area on the west side. That goes without saying. What the idea of bringing the Conditional Use back, it gives not only you but City Council and adjoining neighbors the opportunity to review those types of uses and what type of buffering is going to be suggested. Borup: Okay. Strite: But it's kind of the cart before the horse, you know. In other words, if they are getting offers now or request for offers, but they can't do anything, because they haven't Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 36 of 96 got a zone appropriate to provide a use, they are not going to be able to come up with a plan and I think that Anna made it very clear that -- Borup: Well, that may be, but the majority of the applications we see are done that way. Strite: Well, I think this might be a little more unusual in comparison to some that, certainly, we have brought before you. We have -- Borup: Well, I'm assuming they are asking more per acre than a lot of the ones we have seen before us, too, so -- Strite: That I couldn't comment on. Borup: Okay. Powell: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, before you go too far into the question of when the Development Agreement is -- the proper timing of it, this is the only time you will get a chance to do that. Development Agreements are tied to annexations and zonings they are not tied to the development -- a Planned Development. Borup: So, it sounds like unless you want to change the city ordinance -- Strite: No. I would stand corrected. Then, I would suggest that it be written such that a development would not be required and that it tied to -- the request would be to the Conditional Use procedure. Borup: Okay and I interrupted. Did you have a question, Commissioner? Centers: Yes. I did. Directed back to Anna when we see a Development Agreement, we are also seeing a plat, and a -- not a conceptual use, but a definite use. I mean it's highly unusual to have annexation and zone request. Powell: Correct. Traditionally, you do see a plat -- there are other communities -- Boise City will do an annexation and Rezone with just a Development Agreement, but, legally, the only time you can do a Development Agreement to tie in these Comprehensive Plan policies is now. As I expressed at the beginning of my presentation, that that is the concern, that once the zoning is there, then, you lose that tie to the Comprehensive Plan, that strong tie, that you would at the -- at the annexation point. I mean the annexation time -- time of annexation you can decide I don't like this proposal, I'm not voting in favor of the annexation. Once the zoning is there, you need to fall -- you need to find findings that it doesn't meet the standards as established in the zoning ordinance. Centers: Right. You couldn't simply cover that by saying, yes, we'd like to annex it, we'd like to give you the C-G zone, but you can't do anything until you give us a conceptual plan and you give us a Development Agreement. We look at our first CUP, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 37 of 96 because I can see where he's coming from, he can give us a Development Agreement later when he has one ownership. If we said you just can't do anything until we have those -- we will annex it, we will give you the C-G zone, but with an asterisk. Powell: Well, we can ask the attorney present, but my understanding is that the Development Agreement can only be tied to the annexation, that that's -- you can't tie it to the Conditional Use Permit. This is your only chance to ask for the Development Agreement. Borup: We can get the same amenities that we want, I assume, when the plat or -- if it's going to be a plat or the design, as far as roads, interconnectivity, transition and all that can still be required at some point. I -- I'm assuming we are probably all in agreement on -- at some point we are going to want to see a conceptual plan. We don't want to see the whole -- the project as a whole, not hit and miss. Centers: Yes. Strite: Mr. Chair, would not -- and I might address -- Anna, would not the Comprehensive Plan be, in fact, part of the Conditional Use? It would be tied to -- the Conditional Use would, obviously, have to abide by and be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. I mean it could be one and/or the other. I'm not sure the Development Agreement, quite frankly, is probably a little more cumbersome from everyone's standpoint. The Conditional Use process serves the same sequence and certainly, the same demands and conditions placed upon the Conditional Use could be the same as it would be through a Development Agreement. I mean I think that's the beauty of coming back with a Conditional Use on any and all uses that are put in there. Borup: Well, I agree with that. I mean I -- personally, I'm comfortable with that. Most of the Commissioners here, I think, have fairly long memories. Centers: Well, -- and I'm trying to think and wonder what the Development Agreement actually does for us. Borup: It's a legal document. Centers: Right but what does it do for the city at this point? Strite: Well, I think Anna makes a point, that it does tie it more strongly to the Comprehensive Plan, but at the time, the Conditional Use can do the same thing, because you're not going to allow something in the Conditional Use that's inconsistent with your Comprehensive Plan. Centers: Right. Strite: And I think that even the staff report here is quite conclusive that this particular project does meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the individual issues, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 38 of 96 quite frankly, whether in the Comprehensive Plan or not, are going to be addressed at the Conditional Use level, because they always are. I mean I think the transition area between those residences on the west, for instance, the 35-foot setback that's part of the -- the landscape requirements on an entry corridor is another example. All those sort of things are brought forth at the Conditional Use level and, once again, to be repetitive, they are scrutinized by yourself, by the neighbors, by the City Council. I guess in my mind I don't see the need, nor the desire, nor the want, especially from the applicant's standpoint, to have a Development Agreement tied to the annexation. That's getting the cart, again, before the horse. I think if, in fact, it's annexed, zoned, certainly by virtue of this testimony and the comments made not only by myself, yourself, and Anna -- it's on the record that we come back here with a Conditional Use and be pretty specific and I think that's the crux and I think that's probably more appropriate. Borup: I'm assuming we are looking at an overall project at that time. Strite: My guess -- Borup: I mean not looking at developing a parcel at a time and having the buffer for, you know, one third of the project and, you know, those -- Strite: Again, Mr. Chair, I would have to suggest that I think you're right. I just don't see those breaking into small little parcels and become little projects. Borup: And that's what I would want to see on this project is the whole site. Strite: The site, if my math is correct, 80,000 cars a day, probably makes this thing pretty attractive to larger type users and it can be mixed-use, it can be a mixture of offices and retail. You know, to say -- to guarantee you that these things are all going to be one parcel at one time, I can't do that at this point and -- Borup: Well, I don't know if needs to be one parcel, but with some type of design -- Strite: Well, I think it's to the benefit all four of the applicants on the west side that, eventually, they do get together -- when one gets an offer -- they are going to have to sit down, because there is going to be certain restrictions based on the lateral, there is going to be certain restrictions based on the access points that are coming off of Eagle. Borup: To develop it right you're saying it's going to need to be under one ownership? Strite: Right. If you read on further, I think that Bruce made a good point in there, that you have got sewer and water available, one's at Leslie, one's at Ustick, so it's going to have to come north or south. Ultimately, everybody is going to have to get together to get services, even though they are adjacent to, they are going to have to get together to do that, and I suspect that's going to be in the long-term plan. I think it's going to be beneficial to everybody. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 39 of 96 Powell: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, you cannot condition a Rezone. That's why we asked for a Development Agreement so unless you want to approve wholesale facilities, truck stops that's allowed in the C-G zone. If you want the ability, to see these as Conditional Use Permits come through to you, then, you need to have the Development Agreement tied to the annexation and zoning, otherwise, you're zoning the property C-G and any use that's allowed as a principal permitted use in the C-G will be allowed on those properties. Borup: Without -- Powell: You cannot condition a Rezone. Centers: Well, it's not a Rezone. Borup: Yes, it is. Powell: It is. Zaremba: If we establish this as a C-G, then, anyplace on this property, regardless of who owns it, they can apply, even if they have to go through the CUP process, for something that complies with C-G. The protection that we are looking for now is at least to have no higher than L-O on I would say the western, what, 500 feet or something like that, and I agree with Director Powell, we can't get that later. If we make this a C-G, we have made it a C-G. Borup: And we have done that on other annexations. Have those all been accompanied by Development Agreement? Powell: I'm sure -- if you have conditioned it at all, then, it has been part of the Development Agreement. Borup: Okay. How extensive would the Development Agreement need to be? Can it be as simple as stating every project -- every application would be a CUP? Zaremba: But even as a CUP they -- they would have the legal right -- the applicants have the legal right to come to us and say we are going through the CUP process, but this is a C-G zone and I want this C-G development right on the western border. Borup: Well, no, because that's not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. As Mr. Strite mentioned, there needs to be a transition. That's part of it. But -- so how extensive would the development -- can it -- I believe I'm agreeing with Mr. Strite that something this preliminary, you can't get very detailed. Powell: All we -- I'm sorry. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 40 of 96 Borup: But just stating that it needs a CUP and maybe mentioning a transition area and is that -- is that what you had in mind? Powell: What staff has proposed is the following things that we get a concept plan for all four of these properties, that they come in for Conditional Use Permits, and that we have asked to cite the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies that we feel are of particular concern in those areas. That's all we have asked for as far as the Development Agreement. Borup: But I tend to agree, I'm not sure if the conceptual plan means a lot. In my mind I'm more concerned about access points and transition to the west. Powell: Well -- and you would only see those as part of a concept plan and I think that that's why we were looking for those -- a concept plan in particular. Borup: But the roads could change and, you know, configuration of lot sizes and everything and on the interior I don't know if that really matters much if they move around. Powell: And as you have seen in particularly Resolution Sub, that the staff and the Planning Commission and the Council have accommodated those changes fairly -- fairly easily -- Borup: Right. Powell: -- within the overall plan of the concept plan. Borup: Is there such a thing as a blob concept plan, saying this end of the property will have this type of use, this area -- generally this area would have this type of use? Mr. Siddoway is shaking his head yes. Powell: We are looking up standards for a concept plan. Hold on. Borup: Okay. Let's -- while you're doing that, Mr. Strite, did you have some other points you wanted to make? Strite: No. I just -- that's the end of my testimony and I will answer any questions you might have. Borup: I thought I might have interrupted you before you finished. Strite: No. No. No. No. I think you brought up good points. I just -- with the exception of the Condition Number 3, we are pleased with the staff report, pleased with the way the staff handled it. Perhaps without going on and on, maybe your concept -- I guess it was Commissioner Zaremba -- the comment that the Development Agreement would solely be a suggestion that a Conditional Use is, in fact, required and a traditional Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 41 of 96 transition buffer is required and that's the end of it. That probably wouldn't be too ominous in relationship -- I think it's quite unlikely, if I might -- Commissioner Zaremba mentioning like a truck stop on the west side. I mean I -- that's the whole idea of the Conditional Use, you know, you have the -- you can say I don't care if it's allowed or it's not allowed, we are not approving it. Borup: Well -- but we have to have a reason for stating that. Strite: Well, by virtue of this testimony we understand that. Certainly. That's -- Borup: The recommendation we make or -- should be in line with the Comprehensive Plan and city ordinances. Strite: Right. You would have a hard time finding findings to allow a truck stop on that parcel. Borup: Right. Exactly. Powell: They wouldn't need -- I'm sorry but the point I need to make is they wouldn't need to make those findings if it's a principal permitted use, they could just come in for a certificate of zoning compliance and a Site Plan approval. Borup: Without a CUP. Powell: Correct. Borup: But I don't think anyone is talking about doing that. Powell: Okay but without a Development Agreement, so that's -- Borup: You're saying we can't enforce a CUP without a Development Agreement. Powell: Correct. Borup: Okay so, that kind of simplifies it. Centers: Well, does it say that in the City Code? Powell: Yes. Centers: Or where does it say that? Powell: It's state law that you cannot condition a Rezone. Centers: But in my mind, it's not a Rezone. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 42 of 96 Borup: It is. It's an annexation and Rezone. Centers: It's an annexation and we are applying a zone. There is no zone on it by the City of Meridian now. It's RT, rural transitional. Powell: But there is a county zone on it. Centers: Okay. Powell: So, it's being rezoned to a city zone. Centers: So, we can't do the Development Agreement in our motion, which would include all your items on Page 3, Page 4, and Page 5? That's what the Development Agreement's going to say, part of it. It's going to refer to the Comprehensive Plan. That's -- I guess that's my point. I agree with Mr. Strite going back to the four property owners, you know, I think we could do a Development Agreement in our motion, that it will comply with the Comprehensive Plan as noted by staff on Pages 3, 4, 5 and any -- any future development will require a conceptual plan with CUP’s. Borup: You mean that the items would be included in the Development Agreement, because that needs to be drawn up by the City Attorney, I believe, and signed by the -- Centers: But, I guess, you know, I'm voted down, we cannot do it without a Development Agreement. Powell: My understanding of state law is that that -- you would -- it would be illegal for you to make that motion. Borup: But the development can be simplified. It can be fairly simply, though. Powell: Right and regarding your question about the concept plan, the concept plan needs to show the general arrangement of uses, density, location of major streets, open spaces, utility, et cetera. It could conceivably be a blob diagram. It would be hard to show the open spaces, but it could be a blob diagram. Borup: Okay. Centers: I don't make special requests, but I'd like to make a special request and see that in writing, that it is against the law to annex property without a Development Agreement. Powell: No, sir to condition a Rezone. Centers: And change the zone. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 43 of 96 Zaremba: Otherwise, you have no opportunity to do it. That's the only time you can do it. Powell: It is illegal to condition a Rezone of a property. Borup: That's the key word there, put a condition on it, is what she's saying. Centers: Okay. Rohm: You can't request a CUP after you have turned around and rezoned it. Centers: Okay. It doesn't make sense to me. Zaremba: Once the horse is out of the barn and there is no fence -- Borup: I think -- let's go ahead and take some testimony from others and, then, I think, Mr. Strite, you kind of probably sense the direction it looks like we are going. Strite: Thank you very much. Borup: Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this application? Come forward. Thurston: Mr. Chairman, other Commissioners of the Planning and Zoning and the staff of the Planning and Zoning, my name is David Thurston, I live at 1470 Leslie Way. My property is the very bottom there on the southwest side of the proposed -- right there. As a property owner, I'll state that I'm opposed to zoning this as general commercial. I believe that there needs to be, as stated in the staff report, there needs to be some sort of a master plan demonstrating interconnectivity, transitional uses, access points, and other key land planning issues prior to the zoning taking place. I don't know exactly all the formalities or how the procedure works here, but it sounds like you can't annex it without giving it a zone. Then, I would propose that we take the recommendation on Page 3, there on the second bullet, Item C, deny, or table the annexation report until a development application accompanies the annexation, which demonstrates that some residential uses are incorporated. As a property owner, I'm concerned that there is a transition from the -- from our low-density residential area into this new proposed area. I think also there needs to be part of the plan what's going to happen with the 17 acres on the south that's just sitting there right now with no access. I believe that once there is access through this property, that will open up the access to this 17 acres and that would not only create a situation for the five property owners, but all the property owners that border that 17 acres, which, no doubt, would be zoned also a general commercial. I'd like to see a Comprehensive Plan that shows the accesses and -- the accesses to this property and encourage that there be a plan to show transitional usage of residential to a commercial along the frontage road of Eagle Road. I would like to voice my opposition to this at this time. I thank you for this opportunity to speak. One Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 44 of 96 question I have for the staff. The south border there on that property, is that actually the property line that ditch? Borup: That's what's been -- Thurston: That's as crooked as a hind leg on a dog. I just wondered is that, actually, the property line? Powell: That's what our records from the County Assessor shows, so it's probably pretty close to it. Thurston: It's a ditch that kind of meanders all over the place and I just -- Borup: That's why it's crooked. Thurston: Yes. I guess so. Well, thank you. Borup: Mr. Thurston? Thurston: Yes. Borup: I'm assuming you realize that some day this is going to be developed to some usage? Thurston: Oh, absolutely. I -- Borup: And I assume you also assume that with that location on a state highway and another busy road that it's not going to be all residential. Thurston: I recognize that and that's why I would like to see it transitional residential into light commercial or whatever you want to call it. Borup: I think we are in agreement on that. One of the Commissioners mentioned that and this is going by I think experience from other applications -- that a lot of -- I can think of two or three projects where the adjacent property owners would rather have seen an office use, as opposed to high density residential. Thurston: That's a possibility. Borup: I don't know if you had any thoughts on that. Thurston: Yes. That would be something that we -- I'd like to consider that also. Borup: See, a transition use here -- and I'm not -- I don't mean to speak for someone else, but, normally, from what we have seen, it's probably going to be a fairly high- density residential use as a transition. Again, others have said they would rather see, Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 45 of 96 you know, an office where the place is probably going to be, you know, empty on the evenings and weekends and -- rather than -- rather than a residential where the people are looking down in their yards or whatever. Do you kind of tend to agree that that may be preferable? Thurston: Yes. The thing that concerns me about zoning this C-G is when we got the list of all the land uses -- Borup: Right. We have got the same concerns. Thurston: I mean there is hotels and -- mortuaries, motels, truck stops, heavy equipment, those are all -- Borup: You understand the concern on having it with the Conditional Use, so that that means that each thing would need to come before another Public Hearing and it would be looked at. Thurston: I'm totally in favor of that. I feel that, you know, best interest for everybody involved. There is the four property owners, there is five property owners, there is also potentially lots of other property owners that have an interest in this, so I think it needs to be the best interest of everybody involved. Borup: Right and we can address this. This project down here, this property here, would have to be addressed at the time, of course, that they made an application and I guess it's probably reasonable to assume that some day that -- Thurston: Well, I know they are waiting for some access to that property, because right there is none and this -- Borup: Well, I visualize only one access point on this whole way on Eagle Road, so they would all need to take advantage of whatever that would be. Thurston: Right. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Thurston? Thank you, sir. Thurston: Thank you. Rossow: My name is Betty Rossow and I live at 2832 Leslie Drive. I -- my property abuts the 17 acres that's not developed or not in this plan, but I agree with Mr. Thurston -- Zaremba: Would you pull the microphone closer? Rossow: Oh, I'm sorry. I agree with Mr. Thurston about probably if it's going to be a high density housing, then, I certainly -- if it were me, I would rather have offices where Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 46 of 96 people weren't there all the time. I have a question on Page 4 where it says the -- in italics, the Public Work’s Department in that area -- down here it says the legal description for the annexation places the property contiguous to the city at the northwest corner of the Eagy parcel, which has a touch point with Champion Park Subdivision. Where -- how big is a touch point and where is that touch point? Because it doesn't come -- Borup: Well, they are saying this is a touch point. Hasn't these others been annexed, though? Didn't Carol Subdivision get annexed just recently? Rossow: No. Zaremba: Piecemeal. Not the whole thing. Rossow: Just piecemeal. Borup: Okay. Rossow: There are some of us that don't want to be. Borup: Yes. Rossow: And we are not. Borup: So, I'm assuming none of these lots were, then. Some of them were so, then, there is another access point, too? Rossow: Okay. Borup: Where ever those lots would be. I think at the time it was written they probably weren't annexed yet, at the time they first did their research. A touch point doesn't need to be anymore than a pinpoint. Rossow: Well, all right. In the -- across -- Borup: Right here? Rossow: That's the Davis’s and they still have property and the Champion -- whatever it's called, Champion Park, it's over further, so there was no -- there is no -- Borup: So, you're saying the David property, they withheld that from the -- I didn't think so. Rossow: Well, what is -- what at least at this point that's being developed is all to the west. The west and north. That's why I was wondering what this -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 47 of 96 Freckleton: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Clarification there? Freckleton: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The Champion Park Subdivision, when it was originally annexed, it was -- it came in under the -- Parkstone was the original name. The annexation took in all of the Davis's property clear down to this point. Borup: That's what I thought. Rossow: Okay. Freckleton: So, it took it all in. Rossow: So, a touch point is like across the street. Freckleton: Basically one point, yes, they come together. Borup: But it sounds like at this time it's more than that, if some of these lots have been annexed. Freckleton: Correct. Rossow: All right. Well, that clarifies it. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Grant: Members of the Commission, my name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 Leslie Way. It's just the third lot from the south. Right there. I agree in principle with the comments that Mr. Thurston has made. He's spoken well for us. I do have some concerns about what the transitional plan would involve, whether it be, you know, some kind of a housing or some kind of a commercial or office space. There are enough questions about some of those -- some of different ones could be acceptable, but without a development plan that would lay out those, I would be opposed to approving the annexation plan without more information and those are substantially my comments and, again, I agree with most of what Mr. Thurston has said. Borup: Mr. Grant, would you be comfortable with a statement that it would need to be either residential or office? Grant: What are the other alternatives? Borup: Well, I mean it would be equivalent -- I think we have stated before, we'd maybe need to look at that zoning. It would be the equivalent to an L-O zone or we could just state strictly office building. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 48 of 96 Grant: I'm not familiar with what an L-O is. Borup: Well, that would be light or -- office. Grant: Light office? Borup: Limited office. Grant: Limited office. Borup: But that would have to be handled in -- and do you have a preference in your mind whether office or higher density residential? Grant: There is enough variability in any of those. Borup: Without seeing the project. Grant: Yes. It could be acceptable and, again, that's why I would be hesitant to -- Borup: Well, I'm assuming you would rather have a single or a two-story office, as opposed to a three-story apartment building. Grant: Exactly. High-density housing would be the last on my list. I think most everybody's. Borup: Well, maybe not the last. Grant: Well, the truck stop. Okay. That might be the last or the mortuary. I don't know. Centers: And if I could comment to -- the staff has it written and it would be covered in the Development Agreement that they have convinced me of -- because it states on Page 4, staff finds that transitional uses could be addressed as part of future CUP applications and that would be in the Development Agreement. All of their italicized words would be included in that Development Agreement, I think, or most of them, so it would definitely transitional, either higher density residential or office, I mean -- Grant: I understand. Centers: That would be in writing and, then, if it came to us for a truck stop, there wouldn't even be -- they know that they couldn't get consideration of that. I think you're protected or will be with the Development Agreement. Grant: Well -- and that's -- are you speaking to the fact that this annexation ought to have a Development Agreement associated with it? Is that what I just heard you say? I see a head nodding. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 49 of 96 Centers: Yes. I think we are all in agreement at least -- Grant: So, without one -- and which we don't have one now right? Borup: Not at this point, no. Grant: Okay. Centers: Well, even if we didn't have one, I would put one in there, you know, because I don't want to see you burdened by other properties that would be annoying. Grant: Something that's not compatible. Centers: Right. Exactly. Borup: I think we are all in agreement that there needs to be a Conditional Use Permit on any application coming forward and if a Development Agreement is the only way to accomplish that, then -- Grant: Then so be it. Centers: It tells the developers that don’t even try to ask for something that's other than transitional next to the Leslie Subdivision. That's what it tells me. Grant: Okay. Again, thanks for your time. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. Strite, final comments? Oh. Come forward, ma'am. Ruwe: Good evening. My name is Janet Ruwe and I have the 10 acres on Eagle Road. The address is 2935 North Eagle Road. I have lived there longer than any of the other people that live in the Carol Subdivision, because we were living on that property before Carol Subdivision was even proposed and at that time -- and I'm still living there. Things change. When we first moved there, Eagle Road was a two-lane highway, Highway 69, we had a four-party telephone line -- things have changed. You have to change along with it. Progress is what's happening. When Carol Subdivision came in, the people who were developing that came to us, and, of course, we were -- that was all farmland. At the time when we moved out there, I think that was appealing to us, we wanted to be in the farm -- farmland. They came and asked us if we would go along with them dividing their farmland up into one-acre parcels and we did. At that time Tom and Sue Davis were really up in arms with us, because we were in agreement that they put the Carol Subdivision in. Now, things have changed. I'm still there, I'm still there on 10 acres, Tom and Sue Davis are now putting in a subdivision with lots of homes. Again, I didn't have opposition to that. Things change. We are totally in agreement with what Mr. Strite is agreeing to, that we will definitely do what is best for Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 50 of 96 the neighborhood, for the area, go along with the Comprehensive Plan, go along with Conditional Use Permits, but that's just the nature of life. I mean things change and I really believe that lots of people that are here this evening were not probably the original owners of those homes either. I really think when you buy in an area you have to look around the area and know that you are in an area of change. Eagle Road has gone from a two lane, to a three lane, to a four lane, to a five lane, practically, and the traffic is tremendous. I live there but it's not a place to live -- it's not a residential area. I mean it really isn't. I mean I have a lovely home that -- I mean I really have a nice place, I keep it up well, but, yet, things change and it's not a place where I, you know, plan on staying to live for much longer, because it's not a residential area. Things have changed. I believe that we will take care and bring any proposals to you that would meet the needs of one-acre parcels behind us. Thank you. Borup: Mrs. Ruwe, do you see any concern with that -- what did we decide, four property owners, three, or four? Well, counting the one across the street, but -- this parcel on this side is three property owners; is that correct? Well, either way. Ruwe: Four. There are four on the west side. Borup: Okay. Do you see any concern with all four of them coming to agreement and signing a Development Agreement? Ruwe: What do you mean by that? You mean as a plan where we all have to -- Borup: No. Well, since it's separate ownership, all four owners would need to sign that agreement is what's been stated earlier. Ruwe: Sign an agreement that states -- Borup: That -- essentially, that it would be developed with a Conditional Use. That's more or less notification -- Ruwe: I mean I'm fine with that. I mean speaking for myself and I -- Borup: Okay. Ruwe: -- I pretty much believe the others are. I mean I would think they are. I mean, you know, we are not in there to do something that's going to -- and I have lived there all that -- lived there longer than any of these people have. I mean it's home. I mean I'm not going to see it -- but things have changed and we are putting this application for -- Borup: I think what it comes down to I guess if they want to sell their property, they will sign it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 51 of 96 Ruwe: I mean I can't imagine why we wouldn't want -- I mean I'm totally in it myself for signing it, because I really felt that the Planning and Zoning did a really good job -- Borup: Well, it was mentioned that it may be hard to get all four people doing that, but I don't see a big problem. Ruwe: I don't think it is, because I think we agree pretty much with what was written in the statement. Borup: You got together to agree on the annexation, so there has already been some -- Centers: That's what I was going to say. You all signed the document -- Ruwe: I mean I am sure that -- I mean like I say, I'm totally in agreement. I think the others would be, too, but you have to ask them for sure. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Anyone else? Mr. -- Powell: Chairman Borup, just for clarification. There are -- we only have three property owners listed here, so when we talk about four property owners, we are talking about all the properties associated with this annexation request. Borup: Right. That was what I said originally. I thought there were three on this side. Powell: Yes. Borup: Either way, they all need to -- yes, sir. Go ahead. Eagy: My name is Greg Eagy. I have -- Borup: You're another property owner. Centers: Is there a pointer up there? Eagy: A pointer. Thank you. Centers: Yes. Eagy: I have that property that property, and this piece of property right there. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 52 of 96 Eagy: We lived -- we remodeled and live in this home right here for probably eight or nine months, until I came and my wife said I can't take this traffic anymore and we moved up to The Legends, so we still held onto the property. I empathize with the folks that live on Leslie Drive in a big way, because, quite frankly, I, as a property owner wouldn't want somebody to build a truck stop next to me or chicken coops next to me or apartment houses next to me, quite frankly. Okay. As I sit back and I look at this property, I would, quite frankly, like to move my commercial office from Emerald Road out to that property and take like an acre or maybe two acres and build a really beautiful office building out there. Okay. Again, seeing that I can get together with who buys this property or who does whatever on this property and decide a road at this point through that property. I can't guarantee you that, because I don't have any kind of working agreement with these folks that's other than coming in for city zoning here at this point in time and commercial zoning. At the same time, I'd like to tell the neighbors that whatever I do with this piece of property right here, that I'm going to be over sitting in your backyard with a cup of coffee asking you what to do, okay, because that's only right so, that's what I wanted to say. Borup: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Strite: For the record, Billy Ray Strite, again, 1010 Allante. I'm not really here to rebut any of the comments made by the neighbors. I think they are very all well taken and, quite frankly, we took that into consideration and that's exactly why we suggested that a Conditional Use be required of each and every use. Until such time as there is a plat or a parcel map or -- and/or a concept plan done, we cannot define exactly what goes into the transitional area. However, I guess I could suggest, first of all, if the Development Agreement is going to be simplified in such a manner as to suggest that all uses come before the Commission as Conditional Uses, there may also be a statement in there that all uses that are on the -- bordering the westerly boundary are bound by a transitional use. Quite frankly, I have to agree with the Chairman and also the neighbors who also agree. I'm sure that multiple family housing is not appropriate, Number 1. Number 2 I think that's been fairly well stated by all three of them. I would like to point out that, if, in fact, we do have this Development Agreement, there are two things I'd like to suggest, and one has to do with the access points on Eagle Road. I believe it was Chairman Borup who brought up that there is only one access -- please be advised that there is probably six of those that are existing there today that were deeded by virtue of the right of way take. Borup: And I didn't say there would be only one, I said that's what I would visualize and if I had anything to say about it, there would be. I don't, necessarily, have anything to say about it, but -- Strite: Well, I'm certainly not suggesting that we would be using all six, but I wanted to point out that there were deeded accesses at the time I -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 53 of 96 Borup: Right for residential use. Strite: Well, I think you're going to find -- at least as we found on the parcels to the east side, that the two access points that were deeded were deeded as all movement, all purpose. I have not read the agreements with those on the west side, but my guess is that they are going to be one and the same. I don't think that's going to be in question, because at the time we bring a concept plan, ITD is going to have total control over it. We are not going to end up, I would hope, with another Krispy Kreme situation where the single access had to be negotiated for, what, I think it was -- we were here for, what, two years trying to get that done. I did want to bring up the fact that they are there they are under the disposition of ITD. Certainly, we are cognizant of that and we are going to limit, as we do always, as many access points -- Borup: Well, those were in there before the Eagle Road access study was done, too. Strite: That's absolutely correct. Another thing -- Borup: Policies do change. Strite: -- I would also like to point out is that in this Development Agreement, as simple as it may be. I would ask that in the motion and in the conditions that you split out that Development Agreement between the west side parcel and the east side parcel, so that there is no confusion that one -- that the east side parcel has to contend, necessarily, with the same conditions that might be imposed on those on the west side. I think that's reasonable to assume and I would hope that that would be something you would consider. Centers: In other words, they would -- each parcel would have a Development Agreement, so there would be two? Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Centers, there would -- that's correct. There would be two. There would be the three property owners on the west side, if you will, and the single property owner on the east side, if you will. I just wanted to clarify that, because - - Centers: It's a good point. Strite: We got into the four parcel owners versus three and I think Anna made it clear that there are three on the west, one on the east. Again, trying not to be very repetitive, but I think if, in fact, the Development Agreement must be conditioned as part of this annexation, I would strongly suggest and ask for your consideration that it be simplified. That, perhaps, just in need of a Conditional Use would satisfy not only you, but, hopefully, would satisfy the neighbors that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, as general as they are, would not be in terms of specifics, but would be as noted in these three pages that you have made reference to. If, in fact, that's how you decide you want to tie the Development Agreement, if that makes sense. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 54 of 96 Centers: Yes, it does, but we don't write the Development Agreement and I'm not prepared to do that in a motion, Mr. Strite. I think the staff and gets the gist, though, and you have made it good for the record and the people here tonight I think really prefer light office, compared to residential. They are all shaking their head yes. Strite: And that would be fine with us. Centers: As a transitional use, so the staff or the attorney that writes the Development Agreement could refer to that and refer to the three pages you're talking about and as I keep talking we are expanding the minutes for when they write the Development Agreement. It's not that I disagree with you, I just -- you know I don't want to write the Development Agreement here tonight. Strite: No. Borup: No. I think we can give some input, perhaps. Strite: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Centers, I think the thing is you're making the recommendation onto the Council, who, in effect, will -- Centers: Right. It says prior to the Annexation Ordinance approval and the City Council is the one that does the ordinance approval. You're going to have to get that Development Agreement together before the City Council offers an approval, correct, staff? Powell: Yes. Centers: Correct. Strite: Understand. Centers: Okay but I agree with you on the two parcels. I would like to have staff address that. Strite: Thank you. Any other questions? Borup: Any other questions for Mr. Strite? It sounds like, really -- are we looking at talking -- well, you said Number 3 was the only thing you would even question on the staff report and I think we have discussed that, so -- Centers: We've discussed it, that's for sure. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Thank you. Yes, Mrs. Powell. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 55 of 96 Powell: Can I ask for a clarification on the need to address the two Development Agreements? My only concern about separating them is that the ability for the 20 percent use exception is somewhat diminished. It would have to be 20 percent on one side of the road, versus 20 percent on the other side, if for so reason -- it would leave a little more flexibility -- Borup: If it was all one -- Powell: -- for the city to approve uses that wouldn't otherwise be allowed. Now, that would be particularly critical if we were talking about more residential, but offices are a principal permitted use, so perhaps it's not necessary, but I just wanted to bring that up, that that would be the only fall back in separating out those. Borup: You're saying allow the 20 percent would have on the other parcel would be a -- Powell: Right. It would be -- Borup: -- larger area. Powell: It would be 20 percent of 20 acres, versus 20 percent of 40 or -- Borup: Twenty percent of 40. Powell: It's not exactly those acreages, but -- Borup: I think that makes sense, other than that I don't get the sense that it's -- as you said, it's probably not going towards residential. Powell: It doesn't seem to be going that way, but the Comprehensive Plan does -- Borup: Unless a nice little townhouse project would go in there or something, but I -- I don't know if that's visualized or not. Strite: No comment. Centers: So, Anna, are you saying that you really don't think two Development Agreements would be that big of problem, because you would have 20 percent on each. Borup: Well, she's saying that would be a problem, because that would limit the amount of residential use, because the only -- unless we make exceptions to that 20 percent. Powell: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 56 of 96 Borup: I don't think anyone here would have any problem with that, probably, depending on the project and how the neighbors felt. Maybe that doesn't make a big difference. Are you concerned, Mr. Strite, getting four people to agree, rather than three or -- but if we still have a Development Agreement across the street, he still needs to sign that, so does it make any difference? Strite: I think it's just a little more cumbersome to try to get all four parties together and get it done. I think it would be easier and I think the parcels are split and you have a single parcel owner on one side, that the development be specific to that particular parcel. Borup: Well, it would be anyway, because the part that we are talking about is on the west side of the west property and that wouldn't even pertain to the property owner on the east. Strite: Well, as long as that's specific in the motion -- in the condition, that's fine with me. Borup: Okay. Centers: And as far as getting four together, you have two tonight. Borup: Right here. Yes. Centers: Fifty percent. Strite: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Centers, I don't think that's going to be a problem, quite frankly, but I just -- the one fairly large participant here on the east side is not here to speak for himself, so my guess is it would be preferable to split the two. Borup: Okay. We will take that into consideration, I guess. Thank you. Strite: Thank you. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Quickly. Yes. Thurston: David Thurston at 1470 Leslie Way talking again. On Item Number 3 where it says prior to Annexation Ordinance approval, a Development Agreement shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the four property owners. Will the other property owners on the west side have a chance to see that Development Agreement or participate or -- Centers: They have to sign it. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 57 of 96 Thurston: Okay. Would have to sign it, then. Centers: Yes. Thurston: Because it doesn't say that in here about the other property owners, so -- Borup: Well, it says four. There is only three on the west side. Thurston: Yes the three. Zaremba: You mean the applying property owners, not the neighboring property owners; right? Thurston: I mean the neighboring owners. Centers: No. Borup: No. Thurston: Would we have a chance to see that or -- Centers: No. Thurston: I see some saying yes and some saying no. Zaremba: Well, it's public record and you could see it before the City Council agreement, but you would not be invited to approve it. Thurston: Okay. Just a clarification on that, then. Borup: But, if it goes the way we have discussed, it would be under the Conditional Use process, so there would be another Public Hearing and that's when we would like to see the input from the neighbors. Thurston: Yes. That makes sense. Borup: At least this Commission would like to see the neighbors input at that time. Thurston: I can only speak for myself. I know that this change has been coming, that this property was going to be put to other uses besides just a pasture, I just want to make sure that it's in the best interest of all parties involved and recognizing the four property owners have the opportunity to maximize their investments. We realize there is change, we just to make sure that it -- and this appears to be in the best interest of all the parties involved. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, discussion how we need to proceed? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 58 of 96 Centers: Well -- Borup: Are we even talking -- I don't know that we are talking about even amending any of the staff recommendations, are we? Centers: No. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing. Centers: Second. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman, initially, you know, the staff has convinced me, whether it's right or wrong, that Number 3 has to stay in there in its entirety. Mr. Strite had a good point for two Development Agreements and -- but, then, he brought up right at the end, the property owner for that other parcel that he's talking about on the east side isn't even here. I don't see any -- and as you -- you made the point, he has to sign one Development Agreement, whether it's a combination with three other owners or on his own, so I don't see the need and if he wasn't here to make his case, then, I think we ought to just proceed exactly as the staff has recommended. Rohm: I agree with that. Borup: Just so we -- this whole thing and everything stayed just like it was written? Centers: Can you believe it? Rohm: Well, there is a lot more clarification now than there was two hours ago. Borup: Okay. Well -- and that's -- no, I think it was time well spent. I have been wondering for a long time when something was going to happen on that. Centers: So, saying that, I would like to make a motion that we approve Item 9 on our agenda, AZ 03-018, request for annexation and zoning of 43.86 plus or minus acres from RT to C-G zones for Kissler, Cobbs, Eagy, and Ruwe by BRS Architects. Southwest corner and southeast corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road, including all staff comments as written from their memo dated August 28th and received by the city clerk on August 29th . Rohm: Second. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 59 of 96 Borup: Motion and second. Any discussion? I think -- we did establish that a conceptual plan could be fairly simple. Centers: It's in that -- it's in the -- Borup: Here it says conceptual plan, but the definition of conceptual can be -- all right. We had a motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: I would recommend a break, Mr. Chairman. Borup: Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 03-017 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.00 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC – 355 West Ustick Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 03-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 14 building lots and 3 other lots on 6.00 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC – 355 West Ustick Road: Borup: We'd like to reconvene our meeting this evening. The next project is Item Numbers 10 and 11, Public Hearing AZ 03-017, request for annexation and zoning of six acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development. Then, accompanying that is a request for -- is PP 03-022, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 14 lots and three other lots on the same property. We'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this is an application for the annexation and zoning of six acres. It's currently located in the county and zoned RUT. The applicant is proposing a Rezone to R-4. The Preliminary Plat, again, is for 14 building lots and three other lots. The property is located on the south side of West Ustick Road and it's approximately a quarter mile west of Meridian Road. Here is an aerial where you can see -- well, there is a subdivision to the south, it's still mostly agricultural rural uses. Let's see. I wanted to make a couple quick corrections to the report. Let's see. If you to go -- oh, okay. If you go to Page 2, under the location, the property is, actually, located a quarter mile west of Meridian Road. I had mistakenly written down east. If you go down to surrounding properties, I have inverted east and west. Where it reads east, that should be west of the subject property is rural residential property zoned RUT. East of the subject property there is more property zoned RUT and also the Strausser Farm Subdivision, which is zoned R-4. Let's see. I Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 60 of 96 had a couple other minor corrections I wanted to make. If you go to Page 5 of the staff report, under Preliminary Plat findings and requirement B, again, I wanted to correct the direction. Let's see. If you go to the second sentence -- third sentence. The applicant must obtain the easement for sanitary sewer and water to the existing mains and that's southwest of the site, not southeast. On Page 6 if you go to site-specific comments for the Preliminary Plat, on comments one, two, and three there is a subdivision name listed as Lansbury Lane Subdivision. That, actually, is Salisbury Lane Subdivision, so that change needs to be made in comments one -- actually, one and two. Those were my corrections to make in the staff report, but there are no substantive changes, besides those corrections. I wanted to -- let's see -- put up a copy of the Preliminary Plat and you all saw this several months ago as Northridge Subdivision and this was -- just to give you the background. This was denied by City Council, because the -- if you see the large proposed lots at the north of the subdivision, for the original application that was not a part of the annexation and Rezone and that was -- that was an out parcel. For this proposal here this evening, this is going to be included as a lot in the subdivision, will be annexed into the city and will be serviced with urban services. That's the major changes. Also, I think Northridge was a six-lot subdivision this is a 14 lot subdivision. Those are the major changes, the major differences between Northridge, which you saw earlier, and Parkway, which is here this evening. Staff is recommending approval of this project. Here we have the landscaping plan. Oh. Okay. Actually, I wanted to make one other noted difference between Northridge, which you saw earlier, and Parkway. Northridge was proposing a private road. This application here tonight, this is a public road, which will meet all public road standards, obviously, with curb, gutter, and sidewalks. Do you have any questions of staff? Borup: Maybe just on -- under additional considerations, which area specifically were you concerned on the fencing? Kirkpatrick: Let's see. Which page of the staff report are you referring to? Borup: I'm sorry. Page 6. Maybe I should look at the landscaping plan. Talking about fence height. Kirkpatrick: Yes. Okay. This is where -- this is up for your consideration this evening. You could request for the applicant for this fencing that's adjacent to the open space, the proposed open space lot, you can request that that be limited to four feet in height. Borup: So, you're saying here -- Kirkpatrick: Correct. Borup: -- and here. Okay. That's what I understood. Kirkpatrick: That's a recommendation that would need to come from the Commission this evening, if you decided to do that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 61 of 96 Borup: Okay. Any other questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Cook: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Richard Cook, I'm here representing the client Six Point Development. I'm with Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland Road in Boise. This, as you just heard from staff, is a re-plat of the former Northridge Subdivision that you looked at once before and -- Borup: I liked it better. Cook: Yes. So do we. I think we have got a much -- much better layout -- Borup: No. I mean I liked the first one better. Cook: Oh, you liked the first one better. Larger lots? Borup: Yes. Cook: Okay. Well, I guess I'll leave now. Borup: I think you better proceed. Cook: We think we have a good layout. Our lots are good size lots. We have taken care of our drainage issues here and up in here. We have the public road coming all the way through and, then, stubbing out to the east and this is where we will tie in our sewer and water lines that are extending from the south. There is an eight-inch sewer stub to this point and an eight-inch water line as well. There is -- there is a potential problem in this area here. Wanda Palmer, who owns this home, is concerned about the location of her entrance road. Right now we have -- I haven't scaled it off, but I'm guessing by using my pen and thumb and the scale that's on the map, it's about 20 feet between the edge of her home and the edge of the road, which is the standard setback. She is concerned about the traffic that would be coming into the subdivision via this road and she would like to see it over here. I have suggested to her that we could probably shift the road maybe as much as 10 more feet toward the existing home and provide an additional -- take that width and put it into additional landscape buffer along the side of the road to give her more buffering between her home and the road. In our discussion while we were waiting to be heard this evening, she doesn't like that either, she would really rather see the road over here. If we had the road over here, it would knock out this lot and it would impact our drainage somewhat and there is a well on the site -- I thought it was located approximately here. Mrs. Palmer believes it's located right up in here close to this property line. We would -- like I said, we would be willing to compromise somewhat, but I would not really like to move that -- shift that road clear over to the east side of the home. ACHD has looked at this they have approved the existing driveway, as long as we rebuilt it and pave it to its full width of 30 feet into the property, keep gravel off of Ustick Road. Once again, I believe the development that we are proposing here meets or exceeds all the ordinance requirements and is in Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 62 of 96 compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and we are requesting your approval this evening or a recommendation of approval for the annexation and subdivision to the Council. With that I will stand for any questions you may have. Borup: Questions for Mr. Cook? Zaremba: I am -- the shape of Lot 1, Block 2, does that go along between the road and the neighbor or is that just the little triangle where it looks like the drainage is? Cook: Commissioner Zaremba, that does go all the along the adjoining property line clear out to Ustick Road. Zaremba: So, it already is a common lot and you are suggesting that you would be willing to widen that just a little bit, that common lot? Cook: Correct. Zaremba: Seems like a nice compromise. Borup: Do you know what the width of that lot is now? Cook: Commissioner Borup, no, I -- Borup: Ten feet? Cook: I really don't know for sure. I believe it is 20 feet from -- the sidewalk is five feet wide. Borup: That's what I was looking at. It looks like that's right. Cook: So, I think we have approximately 20 feet between the street and the home. Borup: What's the distance between the home and the property line? Cook: Between the home and the property line -- here, again, I'm only estimating this -- I think it's possibly 10 feet. Borup: But that property line has always been there. I would assume that property line was there when the home was built. Cook: Correct. Powell: Chairman Borup, just because I have a scale, although Mr. Cook is doing a very good job of approximating distances, I can give you a little better idea. If the building is as -- located as shown, it's eight feet from the property line and there Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 63 of 96 appears to be a 10-foot landscape buffer and, then, as said, it looks, actually, to be a six-foot sidewalk. It looks a little -- it could just be there is distortion on the print, but -- Borup: I think the idea would to be a five-foot sidewalk. Powell: Probably. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Centers: So, they put that house pretty close to the property line years ago, didn't they? Zaremba: I was going to say, the county doesn't require side setbacks and -- Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, there wasn't a road there before, so it would have, yes, just been a side street -- a side setback, not a side street setback. Centers: You know eight feet is still a minimal side setback. Powell: The County is actually five feet per story. Centers: Oh, yes? Powell: Or it was, probably, at the time this building was built. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Anything else -- any comments on the fence heights for the common area? Cook: Oh, as far as the common area fencing is concerned, we don't have any objection to putting the fences -- or restricting the fence along the common area here to a maximum height of four feet. I don't see a problem with that. Borup: I said I didn't see a problem with the six-foot, because that common area is already open on two sides. Centers: Well, you don't have pathways. That really isn't in the site-specific -- Borup: That was just an item for discussion. Cook: Right. Right. You know, the property owner -- whoever builds on this lot, you know, they may want to have a six-foot fence along here and, of course, we could not come out with a fence any higher than six-foot to within 20 feet of the front setback. Borup: Right. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 64 of 96 Cook: And -- well, you know, everyone who has a home with a backyard and everything, they want privacy and the six-foot, you know, solid wood fence would give them more privacy. Then, they could drop it down to the height allowed by the ordinance for the remainder of it. With it being a landscaped wide open lot, I -- Borup: Well, that was my feeling. I think, usually, the fence height so you can have visual -- because of visual impact and you have visual sighting of that open space. Here it already is. Cook: Right. I also think one of the reasons for restricting your fence height along your pathways to four feet is for security because people can see other folks walk along the pathway and that way you're not creating an alley effect. Centers: Well -- and as they say in the notes here, it's not -- does not address the issue of fencing surrounding open spaces so, it's not part of the ordinance. Cook: Correct. Centers: Personally, I wouldn't want to make that a restriction for you. You know, I agree with you, the homeowner may want a solid fence he may not. You know, I would leave it to the homeowner. Cook: I appreciate that. Borup: I would agree with that, too. Cook: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify in this application? Palmer: My name is Wanda Palmer, 405 West Ustick Road, Meridian. May I approach and give you some documents I brought? Borup: You need to check that in with the Clerk. Palmer: I'd like to state that I am opposed to the proposed entrance off Ustick Road into the subdivision, because of traffic, noise, fumes, and water table. I did enclose a copy of the letter that was sent to the City Council when it was denied April 1, 2003. The enclosed pictures were taken from the front of my home during the past seven days, showing bumper-to-bumper traffic and if you look at the top one, it shows that the traffic is backed up over half a mile. The others show the same thing. Borup: What time of day was that? Palmer: What time of day? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 65 of 96 Borup: Yes. Palmer: About 7:30. Borup: In the morning Palmer: In the morning. Yes. A.M. That continues for at least 45 minutes or an hour. One can only imagine the noise and congestion with the opening of the new schools in the area and Settler's Park. Settler's Park is right across the road from my house. The entry being proposed is within 10 feet of my bedroom and that's on the middle pictures. The red brick house is my house. The pole fence on the left represents the boundary line or close to the boundary line. You can see how close my bedroom would be to the road and the street lights if this was to be approved. The picture on the bottom right shows the Barton's fence -- well, that's 355 Ustick Road. It shows their fence to the east of the house and the driveway. In that upper picture, the distance from the right side of the driveway to their house -- there is enough distance that my camera could not get it in one frame. My point is that I would ask them to move the entry to that location, instead of my bedroom area, but it still would not solve the problem of congestion on Ustick Road. It is my understanding that formerly the Barton’s -- but they have asked for and been given permission to use the adjoining southwest property for an entrance off Uppa Springs Street. That spur was apparently put there for development in that area and it would certainly be a better choice for those of us who live on Ustick Road. It would also be a safer entry-exit onto Meridian Road, since there is already a turn lane and sidewalks there. Meridian Road is much better designed to handle the extra traffic and pedestrians. The water table, of which is a great concern to me, was at 25 inches below ground level a week ago. With the high water table and not good drainage, we have to consistently be aware of flooding problems. My conversation with Mr. Bill Henson, water superintendent for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District tells me each parcel will differ on water levels. The irrigation water has been discontinued for this year, but the water table is for us an ongoing problem and has been since we have lived there, but there we have learned how to cope with it. We have to always monitor the underground water very carefully. The underground flow in that area runs at an angle from east to west. With people constantly watering their lawns, et cetera, the direction of flow will run toward our drainage area and, consequently, flood our seepage pit. I am merely stating that problem for me, because a lot of areas you may not be aware of that. Do you have any questions that I could answer for you? Centers: Mr. Chairman, I have one. How long have you lived there, Mrs. Palmer? Palmer: Thirty years. Centers: Thirty years? Were you at the first hearing for this subdivision when we originally heard it eight, 10 months ago, when it was called Northridge? Palmer: I was there and submitted the letter April the 1st . Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 66 of 96 Centers: Were you here at the hearing? Palmer: No. Centers: You weren't because the subdivision was very similar. If I recall, the entrance was very similar. I don't think it was on the other side, because that house is there. Borup: No, it wasn't. It was the same place. Centers: Right. Okay. Palmer: According to the letter I enclosed, I had just become aware of that just prior to -- well, it was just this spring. Centers: Do you have a basement? Palmer: No, we do not. Centers: Okay. Palmer: The other house does. Centers: Other house? Palmer: The 355. Centers: Oh, the other -- Palmer: Yes. Borup: This one? Palmer: Yes. Yes. Centers: Thank you. Borup: Mrs. Palmer, do you know -- do you have -- this is your property right here just around the house? Palmer: Yes. Borup: Do you own this down here, too? Palmer: No. Borup: So, do you know who owns that property? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 67 of 96 Palmer: Yes. Borup: Is it the same owner as over here? Palmer: Yes. Borup: Well, I have gone back to your statement that they have requested access from Uppa Springs, but -- Palmer: The Barton’s did purchase a right of way from the people right adjoining that. Borup: They purchased this right of way? Palmer: Right. Borup: Or a sewer easement? Palmer: No to put a road in. Borup: Okay. That didn't come out in the staff report. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I believe that they have acquired an easement. I don't think there is, actually, a right of way dedicated. Borup: That's was what I -- Freckleton: There is just an easement for sewer. Borup: That's why I stated that. That was my understanding from before. You understand the difference? Palmer: What I was told by the -- excuse me -- by the neighbor, there was that -- they had sold right of way for them to use -- to put a road in there for Uppa Springs into their subdivision. Borup: If they did, we do not have a -- I guess the city is not aware of that. My reason for bringing that up, for them to have access to there, they would need to go through someone else's property, which -- Palmer: Right. She was at the last hearing or whatever -- whenever this was presented and talked about it and that was her comment, then, that they had given them -- I don't want to get -- Borup: It sounds like there may be some confusion between a right of way and an easement. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 68 of 96 Palmer: I don't know. Borup: Right of way conveys ownership of the ground itself, doesn't it? Am I correct on that that? The right of way would convey ownership of the property and actually have sold the property. An easement, the originally owner would still retain ownership, but allow in this case -- Palmer: Allow -- okay. Borup: -- a sewer line to go through their property. Palmer: Okay. They also did the road, too, for a road to be put in there. Borup: Well, for them to put a road through they would have to have ownership of the property. Palmer: I don't know. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the easement was strategically placed to allow for a future alignment for the road to connect up. I think that's always kind of been the plan was that -- Borup: And that makes sense. Freckleton: -- we envisioned hooking up with that stub coming out of -- Borup: Whenever this other piece is developed. Freckleton: Correct. Correct. Borup: I think that was -- Palmer: But maybe you would know about the road part on Uppa Springs. Borup: Okay. He will -- we will get some clarification. Any other questions from the Commission? Palmer: But I am very, very, very opposed to the road going so close to my house. If you do not consider it going -- moving to the east, which there is as much room there as there is to the west. Then, I would at least like it moved over against that property, against the other house, and, to me, that would only be the right thing to do anyway. Borup: So, he said they had discussed that and you didn't want -- Palmer: Well, I would prefer having it flip flopped. I would prefer having the road on -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 69 of 96 Borup: Right but his suggestion -- Palmer: Which could have been done very easily. Borup: His suggestion to move it, you were not in favor of. Palmer: That would be my second choice. Borup: Second choice. Okay. Palmer: Yes. Borup: Thank you. Palmer: Yes. Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else? Mr. Cook? Cook: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As far as this road situation is concerned, we have stubbed it out to the property line. There has been no purchase of any right of way by the current owner or purchaser of the property or the previous owner, the Barton’s, that nothing was purchased in that regard to have a road right of way there. The only thing that has been secured is the sewer and water easement. Borup: That was my understanding. Cook: Right. There is stub street right down here on Uppa Springs, so the whole thing is designed to where it will, eventually, connect when this property is developed to the north of Uppa Springs. I had a side bar discussion with staff regarding this situation here with the entrance road and the Council. ACHD, usually, like to see these center islands and it's pretty much of a standard with a lot of these linear subdivisions, that on the entrance we have these islands to break up the entrance and to give some landscape relief and what have you. The primary reason for having these islands is for traffic control, to slow your traffic down and this particular situation it's really obvious that we have a real sharp S curve right in here, just right after you get into the subdivision, which will really serve to slow the traffic down in and of itself. By having this island in here, it can really make maneuvering a little but tricky coming in through here and going out and staff was suggesting that if we take this landscape island, which is approximately 12 feet from curb to curb within the island itself and eliminate it. Shift that land or the use here over along the east edge of the property, we can put another -- add another 12 feet to this area in here, providing a substantial landscape buffer. Borup: I had the same thought. Actually, that's the direction I was headed, so it sounds like you had already been thinking about that. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 70 of 96 Cook: Right. That's certainly something that is doable and it would provide a -- like I say, a substantial landscape buffer between the street and Mrs. Palmer's home. Borup: So, this area right here was not any type of drainage area or anything, that was just going to be a -- just a grass buffer? Cook: Correct. Borup: So, combining that with the 12 feet in here would -- Cook: It would give us about a 22-foot wide plus buffer in there on our side, plus the -- Borup: And so you would be proposing to leave the trees that are in here and just shift them over -- the trees that you're showing in this landscape, to shift that over also? Cook: Correct. Right. With the additional 12 feet in here we would have plenty of room to support trees in there. Borup: Okay. Anything else you want to -- Cook: No. I think that about covers it, unless you have any further questions from me. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Cook: Thank you. Borup: Mr. Cook, so are you suggesting that as a proposal, then, to shift your dividing island over. Cook: Mr. Chairman -- Borup: Or are you saying that would be acceptable to you? Cook: Yes, it would. Absolutely. Borup: We will have to see what the Commissioners think. Okay. Commissioners? Any comment from staff? It sounds like you have suggested that, too, as an option. Commissioners? Centers: Well, I think that's a good solution. You know, with only 14 lots and it's really not a through street, I don't think you're going to have speeding traffic, which is the need for that island to begin with, so I think it's a good solution. Borup: Well -- and the S curve takes care of the speed. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 71 of 96 Centers: I think with adequate landscaping, as both a visual and a sound buffer, Mrs. Palmer said that's her bedroom, but I didn't notice windows on that side of the house. I think additional landscaping space would be very helpful. Borup: Okay. Centers: I would move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Do we need any discussion first or is someone ready for a motion? Zaremba: I don't think there is any big surprise. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 10 on our agenda, AZ 03- 017, request for annexation and zoning of 6.0 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC, at 355 West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo dated September 4, 2003, received by the clerk September 2, 2003, with the following changes -- Borup: Have we had -- Zaremba: I don't have any changes for annexation. Borup: Okay. Right. That's what I was going to mention. Zaremba: So, end of motion. Centers: Well, Ms. Kirkpatrick did make her changes and they are of record for that memo right so, we are fine? Borup: Oh, on the directions and et cetera. Centers: Right. Borup: Yes. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 72 of 96 Zaremba: Motion carries? Borup: Yes. Motion carried. What did I say? Did I -- Zaremba: Nothing. Borup: Okay. The ayes have it. Did I ask for a no vote? Zaremba: We did vote. Borup: Okay. Centers: You didn't ask for it when we voted. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda, PP 03-022, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 14 building lots and three other lots on 6.0 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed Parkway Subdivision by Six Point Development, LLC. 355 West Ustick Road, to include all staff comments of their memo of September 4, 2003, received by the Clerk September 2, 2003, with the following changes. On Page 6 under site-specific requirements, Paragraph 1, the last sentence -- this is connecting to Salisbury Lane Subdivision, not Lansbury. Paragraph 2, the same change, connecting to Salisbury Lane Subdivision. With the note that the applicant has agreed to realign the entrance road off of Ustick by eliminating the traffic island and adding that space to a traffic buffer along the west property line. Borup: Revised plat 10 days before City Council hearing? Would you like to add that in there? Zaremba: So, we will add -- there is a paragraph seven asking for revised plat, so that already exists. Borup: Oh. Okay. Zaremba: That's only if you're -- I'm sorry. We will make this change. On Page 7 -- Borup: Oh, that says required by ACHD. Zaremba: Page 7, Paragraph 7, we will say a revised Preliminary Plat shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the next Public Hearing for this project. Period. Would eliminate if changes are required by ACHD. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 73 of 96 Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second. Powell: Chair, maker of the motion, would it be appropriate to include a revised Landscape Plan because that was discussed as part of that item. Zaremba: Yes. I would add that to paragraph seven to say a revised Preliminary Plat and a revised Landscape Plan. Centers: I still second Borup: Okay. Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 12. Public Hearing CUP 03-038 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tri-plex in an R-15 zone for Troy Palmer Tri-Plex by Troy Palmer – 1236 East 2 ½ Street: Borup: Okay. Next item is Item Number 12 Public Hearing CUP 03-038, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tri-plex in an R-15 zoning for Troy Palmer -- tri-plex by Troy Palmer at 1236 East 2 ½ Street. Open this Public Hearing and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. For the record, Craig Hood, Planning and Zoning staff. Troy Palmer, the applicant, is proposing to convert an existing single family home located at 1236 East 2 ½ Street into a tri-plex within the R- 15 zone. I'm just going to briefly touch on some of the issues, based on the submitted Site Plan slash Landscape Plan that staff has on page four outlined and just ask the applicant to kind of clarify some of those issues with the conversion -- proposed conversion. The first one has to do with the intentions regarding the refuge and garbage, where that's going to be picked up and on-site enclosures for the garbage. One of the other issues is the proposed use is of a higher use than the existing single family home that is to the north of the subject site. I just want to let the applicant know - - and this body as well, that the existing garage on the site and -- is fairly close to the side property line and doesn't allow for a large landscape buffer when you put the driveway in, as the applicant's proposing. Meeting the City Codes for a 20-foot wide landscape buffer, which would be required in this case, will be difficult, so I just wanted the applicant to know that he will be required to install a landscape buffer per code. That is not shown on this Site Plan, so if he's proposing to do something that isn't per code, then, we do need a Variance application to be submitted and we did speak about alternative compliance. I -- that is up to Anna, I guess, and she is looking that way. I was reading through that portion earlier in the hearing and it did say prior to submitting an application, but that may be an option as well as something -- because there are some circumstances here that just -- it justly doesn't make sense to require the full Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 74 of 96 landscape buffer. I know that the adjacent property owner is here, he may have some compromise that may be able to be reached, so all the parties have some way to mitigate this higher use, if you will, adjacent to this -- to the proposed use. I guess I will stop with that. Those seem to be just some of the things that need to be clarified on this submitted Site Plan you see before you now. I'll stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? T. Palmer: Good Evening. Troy Palmer -- Borup: Go ahead and speak up, so we can -- T. Palmer: Good Evening. My name is Troy Palmer I'm here to talk about the tri-plex. Borup: Go ahead and state your address, too. T. Palmer: I'm sorry. The property address? Borup: No. Your -- T. Palmer: 5450 North Larkwood. Borup: Okay. T. Palmer: The two issues that you talked too -- commented on, the intent of the trash refuge. My intent was to provide two 90 gallon containers in the garages that are on the north end of the property to be brought out to the street to handle the trash issue, which I have talked to Brad down at the -- in our preliminary meeting. He thought that would acceptable. Then, as far as the Variance applicant, it was my intent to submit for a Variance application on the landscaping buffer. I thought that the garages that are there, instead of having to tear them down, to eventually develop the property in the back that they -- they compliment the neighborhood and that they fit in well with the surrounding landscaping and architecture. I felt that they should be left, so I was to going to apply for a Variance on that. Borup: Did you discuss the alternative compliance option also with staff at all? T. Palmer: Which is -- what was the alternatives? Borup: Well, they may have some correction, but I believe on an alternative compliance you could do some more intense landscaping. T. Palmer: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 75 of 96 Borup: And with a smaller buffer and still comply. Is there something you'd like to add to that? T. Palmer: I think Brad and me might have discussed that in our preliminary meeting and I told him that if we needed to do that, I would be agreeable to do that. Borup: Okay. T. Palmer: I feel we should -- if we can leave the garages as they would -- that would be the best-case scenario. I would be willing to do what we need to do to have that happen. Borup: Any other questions from the Commissioners? Centers: Yes. I had a question, Mr. Chairman. Your intent was two basement apartments? T. Palmer: Yes. Centers: And then, one apartment above? T. Palmer: Upstairs. Yes. Centers: Your access -- I take it you're going to dig down and put doors in or -- I'm unable to tell by the pictures. T. Palmer: Yes. There is, actually, already a full basement in the basement. It has a separate entrance already. Centers: One separate entrance. T. Palmer: On the property on the right side of the house, yes. Centers: So, you're going to put a hallway to -- T. Palmer: There is a stairway going down and, then, there is going to be a common shared hallway with one unit on the left and one unit on the right. Centers: I had thought maybe Chairman Borup knows or the planners’ maybe you know this. The Fire Department didn't address it. Don't you have to have window sizes for emergency exists? T. Palmer: Egress windows. Yes. That's -- Centers: Two by three? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 76 of 96 T. Palmer: Yes. Centers: Is that the size? Borup: No. It's larger than that. Centers: Is it? Borup: Twenty by twenty-four access. Centers: So, that will be addressed when the building permit is issued, correct? T. Palmer: Yes. Ironically enough -- oh. Sorry. Ironically enough, I have already done that work. I was told when I called the City of Meridian that all I needed to do was just come in and get a permit to change the building, it was already zoned that direction, but I guess the first of the year they changed the ordinance to where we had to come before you guys. I had already gutted the basement, I had already replaced windows with the proper windows to meet code and, then, I came to a stand still at that time when I went to go get my permit to start doing my electrical and framing. Centers: And you found out that you needed to come -- T. Palmer: Through the city. Yes. Yes. When I originally called the city they said all I needed to do -- I was already in the correct zoning for what I needed to do and that all I needed to do was come in and get a permit to change it and that's -- Centers: Someone over the phone told you that? T. Palmer: No. I had somebody -- one of my guys that works for me go down and talk to them down there. Borup: That was in Old Town right? T. Palmer: Yes, because it was in Old Town and it was zoned that already and -- Borup: Do you actually own the property in fee simple? T. Palmer: I do. Centers: You didn't buy it subject to converting it to a tri-plex? T. Palmer: No. I actually own it. Yes. I have owned it for like two years now, a year and a half. Centers: Okay and you probably checked that out? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 77 of 96 T. Palmer: Yes. Centers: That's interesting. You were told just get a permit, now you have to go through this process? T. Palmer: Yes. Centers: Okay. I was just concerned about the windows, the emergency access, and you're aware of that. That's good. T. Palmer: Now for sure we are going to make sure everything complies with code. Centers: Good. That's all I had. Borup: Any other questions? T. Palmer: Yes. The gentleman that told me that we -- the gentleman that told my guy that we just needed to come down and pay for a permit is no longer working here, so --I he was a younger kid. He went on to somewhere else, but -- Centers: He's no longer with the city? Maybe that's why. T. Palmer: Could be. Powell: Probably working for an engineer somewhere. Borup: Go ahead. Zaremba: I'm just needing some help orienting to the drawing here. T. Palmer: Okay. Zaremba: I see the existing garage, which we can see in the picture here, appears to be the one that on the drawing says garage, two parking spaces. Then, there is one to the east of that. Am I interpreting correctly that there is, then, going to be a driveway along the north -- what's the access to second garage there? And is that existing now? T. Palmer: Yes. That is where the easement -- that's where the road's going to be for the back of the property. Zaremba: Okay. Is that garage already there? T. Palmer: There is already a garage behind that garage. It's more of a shed, more than a garage. It's not for parking of vehicles it's more of a fairly good size storage area that's enclosed. It's finished off, but it's not for parking cars. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 78 of 96 Zaremba: Okay so, then, the access to the two parking spaces -- T. Palmer: Would be behind that. Zaremba: -- east of that is along the north side of those garages? T. Palmer: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Centers: Well, you're fortunate that you have an acre to deal with. T. Palmer: Yes. Zaremba: That can't be landscaped, then, right, if it's a driveway? Am I missing something? Okay. Is there additional space beyond the driveway that can be landscaped? T. Palmer: Yes but it ends about where the garages are is where the adjoining neighbor's property is. Behind that is a bare lot behind him also it's vacant land that I do not own. Zaremba: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there are -- there is approximately seven feet between the edge of pavement -- proposed edge of pavement of the driveway and the property line, which you can see the large trees that will be retained. There is that power pole there, that's -- there is seven feet, approximately, in the property line, somewhere in between it, but we are -- the edge of pavement for the new driveway is -- and the property line to the north, there is approximately seven feet that can be landscaped within that seven feet. Zaremba: And that's where you're saying the alternate compliance, rather than having 20 feet or whatever, would be to put more dense shrubbery or landscaping in there? Okay. Centers: Well, Mr. Palmer had mentioned he's going to apply for the Variance through -- T. Palmer: Yes. Centers: -- the City Council. T. Palmer: Yes. Zaremba: That was it for me. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 79 of 96 Borup: Okay. Thank you. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, just to perhaps clarify a few things. He would be able to ask for alternative compliance versus a Variance, so that would certainly be the more expeditious way to go on the applicant's part. There may have been some confusion in terminology between Craig and I while he was writing the staff report and I apologize for that to you, as well as the applicant, if that's the case. My understanding of the alternative compliance use that the -- of it as a tool and kind of this Old Town area where there are -- even though it's not Old Town zoning, but in these areas where there are fairly small lots or narrow lots, as the case may be, with existing uses, that it has been -- the primary method of reducing those required buffers between -- between uses and, then, regarding the -- Borup: Would that be worked out with staff, then? It wouldn't need to come back for a -- Powell: No. It's just a director termination. Borup: Okay. Powell: So, if you all approved it, then, we could work with him to come up with something suitable. Given the heavy, dense vegetation, the canopy, I'm not sure -- he is certainly not going to be able to get more trees in there, probably. It looks like it's a -- got quite a canopy as it is, so -- Borup: But maybe some lower -- Powell: Maybe some shrubs. Borup: Lower shrubs or something. Powell: Regarding what the applicant was told as part of the -- of having approval for the use, just for the applicant's benefit and for yours as well, there was some confusion in the zoning ordinance -- I believe it was taken out about a year and a half or two years ago. There was three family dwellings in there and -- but it wasn't consistently used, so there was a conflict between multi-family dwellings and three family dwellings and apartment houses and there were some amendments made to the use schedule that, basically, pulled it down to just apartment houses. So, anything over a duplex becomes an apartment house and that buffer is based on the idea of a multi-family dwelling, you know, probably more than three, adjoining residential uses. This is a fairly benign multi- family use as far as -- you know, it's not 100-unit apartment house, complex, or something like that. Just those clarifications for the Commission. Borup: Before the Old Town designation came in, was that what was needed or was a CUP still required? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 80 of 96 Powell: Well, I believe this is, actually, zoned R-15, but it's in this area in general, I think, that they have been doing that with those existing uses -- Borup: Oh. Okay. It is an R-15, so what -- yes. That should have been -- Zaremba: Which brings up the question -- Borup: Well, then, why is he even here if it's zoned R-15? Borup: Because a Conditional Use Permit is required for apartment complexes in R-15, in a use technically an apartment complex. Borup: Because it's over three -- or because it's over two? Powell: Yes. Borup: Okay. Powell: That would be something we would look at in the rewrite of the zoning ordinance. Zaremba: Shouldn't it also be being rezoned to O-T, though? Borup: An R-15 is also 15 units per acre. Powell: Correct. Apartment houses are Conditional Use in the R-15 and the R-40 zone. They are not principally permitted in these zones. Borup: And R-40? I thought they were allowed in R-40. Powell: Conditionally allowed. Borup: Okay. Then I just had kind of a side question. It's not -- probably doesn't really make any difference, but this size sign is not required on projects of this size, are they? Five acres and above. Powell: Can we answer that question in a little bit? I don't know the answer off the top of my head. Borup: I believe it's five acres. Unless there was something else that was added in there in addition to that. Maybe the type of -- maybe the type of project was also -- any other questions from the Commission? Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this? Stephens: Good evening. My name is Tom Stephens. I live at 1304 East 2 1/2 Street, adjacent to Mr. Palmer's property. The thing that I was concerned about is with that Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 81 of 96 extra driveway going in, which is adjacent to my property there, I'm concerned about the extra noise and the extra traffic that's going to be brought in onto our street in that area. It sounds like the Commission and Mr. Palmer has got the Variance or the noise that's going to be created there -- it sounds like something is going to be done. I'm not sure exactly what, but that is my main concern is the extra noise that it's going to create and the extra traffic on that street. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Stephens: That was basically it, just on the noise. Borup: Yes. As far as the traffic, I don't know that there is much we can do that's going to prevent that, you know, there would be a couple more residences there. Stephens: Right. Borup: As far as the buffering, that is something that could be open for discussion, and what I was just wondering now, maybe if a fence would be -- do better for you than some landscaping. Stephens: I -- with the distance that's there, I think maybe a fence would probably do -- would do fine. Borup: Would that be your preference over some shrubs that would be probably something solid that would not let any light and -- Stephens: Yes. I think -- yes. The shrubbery I don't know that that would really make much difference, but I think a fence would probably be adequate, because my property line -- Borup: This is your property all along here? Stephens: Yes. Just inside -- Borup: Other side of those trees. Stephens: North of the trees. Yes. Just about right along the edge of the driveway, to the left of the fire hydrant there. So -- and I think the property line is just one foot or so inside my driveway there. So, that's what I'm concerned about. It's just since he's putting in that driveway there, as far as the extra noise. And it sounds like the problem is being addressed. Borup: Well -- and that's one of the reasons we have a Public Hearing, is the input from the adjoining property owners, so that's -- it looks -- the way it's drawn, there would be two parking spaces back there, so -- right here. So, the traffic back here would be Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 82 of 96 going to these two spots, would be all, so it would just be the two cars that would -- the other -- the other parking is right here and, then, the other is over here. Stephens: Right. The two will be inside the garage and, then, the other two will be in the front of the house there, so that -- Borup: Correct. Stephens: So, that was just -- Borup: So, the ones that will be going down this driveway will these two back here. Stephens: Yes. That is just -- that was just maybe my concern. Borup: It sounds like a fence would be a good solution for you, then. Stephens: I would think that that would probably be the best solution. Borup: Okay. Stephens: Yes. Centers: Mr. Stephens, how long have you lived there? Stephens: Seventeen years. So, I have seen a little change, you know, and that's to be expected. I -- you know. Centers: Yes. Stephens: I didn't think that apartments would be going in, but that's what happens. Borup: Well, it looks like the house was -- the character of the house itself isn't really changing, so -- Stephens: Yes. And that's good. I'm glad to see that, because that house is a really nice place. Borup: Okay. Stephens: So I think that was all I had. Borup: Thank you, Mr. Stephens. Centers: Thank you. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 83 of 96 Borup: I don't see anyone else, so I think that's got to be a hundred percent of the public. Mr. Palmer, any final comments? T. Palmer: Just that I think a fence -- if that's what we all agree on, would be fine. I wouldn't see a problem with putting up a fence to buffer that noise for him and take care of that problem for him. Borup: Okay. T. Palmer: That should be no problem at all. Borup: The only question I have on the fence -- and that probably doesn't -- does that fit in the definition of alternate landscaping or -- Powell: A fence is, actually, listed as something as part of a buffer, so it is in the definition of buffer, so I would think that that's -- Borup: So, that's something that could still be worked out without requiring a Variance application? Powell: Correct. And also, Chairman Borup, you were correct, the applicant only needed to post an 11-by-17 sign. Which he probably doesn't really want to hear at this point. T. Palmer: Yes. I was given the instructions for that size of a sign and that's what I did. Borup: Sorry about that. T. Palmer: That's all right. Borup: I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some change that I wasn't aware of. Okay. It sounds like that's probably -- I mean you're in agreement on the fence and that's what the neighbors would like, so I'm assuming that's the direction that the motion is going to go. T. Palmer: Okay. Borup: And I think that's probably a lot less maintenance for you than landscaping. T. Palmer: Yes. Great. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Centers: So, for staff, there really wouldn't be a need for a Variance application, is that what we are saying? If we require a fence along the -- is that the north property line? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 84 of 96 Borup: Well, I think there probably still needs to be some discussion to see if it's agreeable as an alternate compliance. Centers: Yes. A recent application that we had -- in fact, we were talking about it earlier, we required a fence in lieu of the buffer. I don't know if the Council approved it, but -- do you recall that application, Chairman? Borup: Yes. I don't remember which one it -- Centers: The elderly lady that wanted the fence and -- at any rate, in lieu of the landscape buffer and everyone was happy with that. And the cost was about the same, so -- Zaremba: OPM on Fairview. Borup: Oh. That's right. Okay. Zaremba: Used car lot. Centers: Yes. They were doing a car lot out front on Fairview. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to -- Zaremba: I'll move the Public Hearing be closed. Centers: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Does staff feel we are okay on the trash issue with a 90 gallon -- two 90 gallon - - I believe that's what Mr. Palmer said. Powell: Staff is nodding his head yes. Borup: And then would -- should there be some -- some discussion with time zoning as far as alternate -- alternative compliance, in addition to what this motion may be? Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, yes, I would suggest adding a condition that they provide a revised Landscape Plan showing their proposed method of alternative compliance 10 days before the City Council Hearing, so that we can review it and make a recommendation at the time -- at least get it on the record at the time it has the City Council hearing as to whether the alternative compliance has been approved. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 85 of 96 Centers: And the fence could part of that. Powell: Yes, sir. Centers: That's for Mr. Palmer's information. Borup: Okay. Centers: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a stab at it. I would like to make a motion that we approved CUP 03-038, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a tri-plex in an R-15 zone for Troy Palmer Tri-plex by Troy Palmer. 1236 East 2 ½ Street, including all staff comments and adding site-specific Comment Number 4 that applicant to submit his alternative compliance proposal prior to the City Council Meeting to the staff for their review, which would include the fence. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Any questions on -- this recommendation will go forward to City Council and there will be another Public Hearing at City Council. Mr. Stephens, right now our motion was to -- that there would be a fence in. Item 13. Public Hearing AZ 03-020 Request for annexation and zoning of 1.13 acres from R-6 to L-O zones for proposed Office Jet Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 1975 North Locust Grove Road: Item 14. Public Hearing PFP 03-003 Request for Preliminary / Final Plat approval of 4 building lots on 1.13 acres in a proposed L-O zone for proposed Office Jet Subdivision by Wardle and Associates – 1975 North Locust Grove Road: Borup: Our last project is Item Numbers 13 and 14, Public Hearing AZ 03-020, request for annexation and zoning of 1.13 acres from R-6 to L-O zones for the proposed Office Jet Subdivision by Wardle and Associates. It's at 1975 North Locust Grove. Accompanying that is Public Hearing PFP, which is Preliminary/Final Plat, 03-003, for the same project. I'd like to open both these hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is a request for zoning for 1.13 acres from what's currently zoned R-6 within the City of Meridian to L-O. There is also an application for -- oh, I'm sorry, I want to make a correction. I had the dash here, but there was a city zoning. It's R-6 county zoning. Excuse me to L-O Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 86 of 96 zoning. The applicant also has a preliminary and a Final Plat for four commercial building lots. The subject property is located on the west side of Locust Grove Road about a quarter mile north of Fairview. You can see an aerial. This is, actually, an older aerial. I'm going to go through some of the significant points this evening. The designation for the subject property is light residential on the Comprehensive Plan, but staff feels -- and we highlighted this in the staff report -- the policies of the plan and existing conditions surrounding the subject property warrant the applicant's approval -- or recommendation for approval for the Rezone to L-O. I'm going to go through some of the surrounding uses of properties. To the north of the subject property we have an office building, which is zoned L-O, to the south of the subject property, we have a single family residential subdivision, which is, zoned R-6. This is the Doris Subdivision. To the east of the subject property, we have Locust Grove Road. On the east side of Locust Grove we have Avis Plaza Subdivision, which is a commercial subdivision, and there is a mini storage there immediately to the east of Locust Grove Road and subject property. To the west of the subject property, we have -- again, Doris Subdivision. The applicant has worked with staff throughout this application process and they have also had a neighborhood meeting and submitted a petition from all adjoining neighbors and residents of Doris Subdivision in favor of the proposed zone change and Preliminary Plat. I'm going to point to you -- I'm going to, actually, read to you some language from the Comprehensive Plan which we feel is supportive of this zone change and this is, actually, on Page 2 of your staff report and I'll go ahead and close this. The Comprehensive Land use map depicts desired feature land use categories and their location within the impact area. The areas depicted on the map are conceptual and, therefore, will require further analysis prior to the creation of the zoning map. This outlines the Comprehensive Plan land use as being more of a guide for decision making and I do also want to point out that while we are recommending approval of this zone change. I want to caution you all that this is a new interpretation of Comprehensive Plan policies and that while we are supportive of the interpretation in this instance, we -- if this is approved we want it to be noted that we see this as only being appropriate in very limited cases. In this case they have cooperation from the neighbors. The surrounding land uses are conducive to this proposed zone change and it is immediately adjacent to Comprehensive Plan zoning -- to the north we have an industrial zoning immediately adjacent to the subject property. Excuse me. Office. We have an office designation immediately adjacent to the north of the subject property. What we are, essentially, doing is sort of bumping -- bumping that zoning designation down to wrap in another piece of property. We just wanted to caution you that we were taking this seriously and it's not something we would recommend for every application that would come through and are there any questions of staff? Borup: Just a clarification. Did you say that all property owners signed a petition supporting this? Kirkpatrick: And I'll have the applicant speak to that. It's -- I believe they have signatures from all residents of Doris Subdivision and also adjacent property owners. We will let the applicant -- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 87 of 96 Borup: Okay because that was not in our packet. I -- Kirkpatrick: The applicant submitted a copy of that -- of that petition with their application. Borup: Well, that -- I mean if that's -- yes, we didn't have it in our packet, but that probably explains why there is no neighbors here tonight. Kirkpatrick: Right. That was actually a critical part of kind of winning over staff on this application was that they had -- they had that support of the neighbors. Borup: Okay. Mr. Wardle. Centers: And what you said, in a nutshell, was the deviation to the Comp Plan is a case-by-case basis. Kirkpatrick: Right. Centers: Of course, 1.13 acres, your -- your memo should say request for annexation and zoning or did you cover that because it just states request for zoning. Kirkpatrick: Right. We want to go ahead and, actually, officially make that correction to the record. Centers: Right. That's all. I thought we agreed not to start any more Public Hearings after 11:00. Borup: I thought it was 12:00. Wardle: I think that clock is fast. Powell: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I think we just change Jonathan's or Jake's name, I'm not sure, to just last applicant and that will satisfy that. Borup: Every meeting. Zaremba: I was going to ask him if he had done something to be last on the agenda every time. Wardle: I hope not. I may have to rectify that in the future. For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 4940 East Mill Station Drive, Boise. 83716. I appreciate the work that staff has put into this. Just to give you a little bit of background, we knew that this was a deviation, at least from the Comp Plan land use map, and so we spent our time meeting with staff to discuss the issues. We took it one step further. We held a neighbor meeting with the owners of Walnut Grove, which is the townhouse project which is on Willow Brook, so the road that just comes right in the north and in there to Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 88 of 96 the townhouses. We are going to take access from this project onto Willow Brook and so we won't be accessing directly to Locust Grove and that addresses some issues in terms of complex. There is an existing road there. We worked with them to get a cross-access, because they had a landscape strip that comes there and so we will be accessing across that and they have granted that access to us. We also, because we are part of the Doris Subdivision, which is a county plat, zoned R-6, we were part of their CC&R’s as well, so we went and met -- actually went door to door talking with the neighbors and got a majority of them to sign allowing us to, in essence, opt out of the CC&R’s and agreeing, in concept, with what we are trying to do here, which is do a small office development. The neighbor just to the due west of us -- we are working with him on fencing issues, as well as on -- let's see if this works. Borup: There is a house on this -- I don't see a house on that lot, but I assume there must be one here. Wardle: There is. I think this is the roofline right there. It's kind of hard to see. They have a pasture back behind. We have a number of trees right here and we are working with them to relocate those trees onto their property, instead of just cutting them down, and I -- I'll look for a nod here, but I think we have worked with a forester on compliance in making that work. We worked directly with this neighbor as well. We also sent out notifications to everyone on that mailing letting them know what we were doing. We just felt it was important to inform those that were directly related and do our homework up front on this project. The type of development that we are doing, just to be very clear, is an office development. The owner of this office, which is right here, which is zone L-O, is going to be building his own building here as well and relocating here and the quality of the project will be similar to, if not exceeding, the existing office building. I'm not -- don't know if staff has a picture of that currently, but it's a very nice office building and he will retain ownership of the existing one, as well as control the development here. We have reviewed the staff report. We are supportive of the comments and recommendations there. We feel that this will be a nice addition to this neighborhood and the fact that we can take access to an existing project, which has an office right there as well. We feel, actually, great that that is to Locust Grove and not put anymore more direct trips right to it, but at a controlled access point as well. I would be willing to stand for any questions you might have or discussions regarding any issue of the application or things that staff or ourselves have brought up this evening. Borup: Questions from the Commission? You said you got the majority of the homeowner’s approval. Did all the adjoining homeowners sign? Wardle: Yes, they did. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: You're going to preserve the existing sidewalk on Locust Grove? Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 89 of 96 Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, yes, we are. ACHD has recently done that improvement on Locust Grove. It's a three-lane road with sidewalks on both sides. One of the requirements that they had was we have three existing curb cuts and we will be replacing those, we will be ripping them out, and vertical curb, so it's -- there won't be any access to Locust Grove, so, yes, the sidewalk will be, actually, upgraded at those locations and maintained. Then, there will be similar landscape buffer as what we have done to the north will be across the front here with more plantings and that type of thing. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Any other questions from any Commissioners? It makes it easy when you -- when you have everything taken care of like that. I can't tell you how -- I'm pleasantly surprised that there are no neighbors here. You need to be commended for that. Wardle: Thank you. Centers: I move we close the Public Hearing. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Centers: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve Item 13 on our agenda -- or recommend approval, AZ 03-020, request for annexation and zoning of 1.13 acres from R-6 to L-O zones for proposed Office Jet Subdivision by Wardle and Associates at 1975 North Locust Grove Road. Including all staff comments from their memo showing a date of September 4th and received by the City Clerk on September 2nd . Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Centers: Additional, I would like to -- Borup: Now, did we clarify -- I mean -- that's just for annexation. You said in that your motion. Center: Yes. Right. Borup: So I guess that takes care of it right there. Okay. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 90 of 96 Centers: Item 14. I would like to recommend approval, which is PFP, preliminary and Final Plat, 03-003, request for a preliminary and Final Plat approval of four building lots on 1.13 acres in a proposed L-O zone for proposed Office Jet Subdivision by Wardle and Associates at 1975 North Locust Grove Road. Including all staff comments from the memo showing hearing date September 4th and received by the City Clerk on September 2nd . Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Thank you. One final thing before we dismiss, Commissioners, and that's just maybe some informational and, Mrs. Powell, did you want to cover that? Powell: Sure. Borup: We are talking about trying to spread the load a little bit more on our hearings. Powell: Chairman Borup, Commissioners, we did speak at the end of the last hearing about agendas in general and the desire expressed by some of the Commission members to kind of spread the load more equally between the first hearing of the month and the third hearing of the month. As I traveled home that night at, what, 1:00 in the morning, it occurred to me that it wasn't -- the only equitable and fair way that I could think of to do that, to decide who went on the first and who went on the third, was to really just to have a separate cutoff. That you would have a cutoff on the 15th of the month and we would also -- for those of you who don't know, currently we have a cutoff on the 15th of the month, we take the first six projects or seven projects, depending on Keith's mood for the day -- or the chairman's mood for the day. We put them on the first agenda and, then, any application received after that would go on the second agenda. What I would propose, instead, is that we have a cutoff on the 15th that would go to the first agenda, the cutoff on like the first of the month would go to the second agenda. There is going to be a difficult transition time there as people get used -- probably just that first month. The outstanding question is how many I -- how many projects do we put on those agendas. If we -- if we say, okay, we are going to take the first seven that we received on the 15th and put them on the first agenda and these other three that we received on the 15th go on the second agenda. Then, the cutoff on the first comes and we have got seven more projects, then, there are three projects that are going out to the next month. Then, we have problems with getting them to you in a timely fashion as mandated by state code. Some jurisdictions choose to ignore that. I have never quite figured out how they do that, but there are time limits that we are kind of close to already. So -- but there is concern that if we add a second cutoff date it could potentially increase the number of applications. It's not likely to decrease them anyway, so we are not -- one would think we would have the same number of applications, but I suppose there is a potential that we could get in more. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 91 of 96 Rohm: So, it can't be just purely arbitrary? Powell: Well, if I were an applicant I would be a little upset about an arbitrary process and I guess that's what I want to avoid. Borup: We have been doing that a little bit. I have looked at the agenda as far as -- not the number of items, numbered items, but the size of the projects. You know, sometimes four items is one project. The other thing we looked at is when an agenda starts getting full, do we stick four or five small projects on or do we do one single project and my choice has been to do the four or five smaller ones and, then, put that larger one to the second meeting. That does get arbitrary that way, then, and I -- I don't know. I don't know if anyone's ever complained. I haven't heard anything, but they probably don't know what's happening, so they can't complain. Powell: Yes. That could be and most of the cities in Ada County just have a cutoff date. If you make that cutoff date, you go on that hearing. Now, if it gets too late, they will table you to the next hearing, but they don't set a limit on the number of projects they hear that night, the just second the cutoff -- Borup: And, then, table them. Powell: -- you're on that hearing. If it gets to be 10:00, you can be pretty sure that you're going to get tabled at 11:00 or midnight. I think they use a similar cutoff of 11:00. Now, Canyon County is a whole different subject matter. They say we are only going to take this many items on our agenda and they put things out and it can take six -- no kidding, six to eight months to get on one of their agendas, so -- Borup: Well, I'm thinking -- you know, theoretically, it should have average out and even out. I guess time will tell and we will have to kind of play with it and see. My concern was about having too much of a backlog accumulate if we start cutting them too short. I mean, you know, the agendas too short, that we just keep building up that accumulation and I don't think we want to see that. At least I don't want to see that. I don't think that's fair to the applicants either and -- Centers: Well, I like Anna's idea of in the by 1st , on the 15th , and whatever. Borup: And hope that evens out. Centers: Yes and just put them all on there. Then, if we get to midnight and we can't cover them all, then, we just have to postpone them, like we have done before. Borup: Theoretically, it shouldn't be anymore than what we are averaging now on a monthly basis and we haven't -- Centers: You know, I think that's fair for the applicants, if the -- first in, first out. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 92 of 96 Borup: I'll just have to play it and try to be strong on the continuing. Well, we did one last month. Centers: Yes. Borup: But they knew going in that there was a good chance that they would be continued. Powell: Well, I will -- then, it's sounds like I will work on getting a letter out to the development community, then, and get a cutoff set for the 1st. I have not run this by the Building Contractor Association, but I can't, under any circumstances, imagine why they would object to it, so I mean it's facilitating -- Centers: It's an improvement. Powell: It's an improvement. Just so you know, I haven't run it by them, but I don't think that they will complain at all. Borup: Well, we have one person here that maybe -- this is not necessarily a Public Hearing, but we would be open for any comments. Did you understand what we were saying, there would just be two cutoff points, so you're not -- we thought thing that would also do is not have a mad rush at the end, you realize -- you know, if a person was trying to get something in there and realized, well, I can turn it in in two weeks, so - - Powell: But you will be last, Jonathan. Wardle: Well, I just figure I'm always last, even if I was the first one to submit. I guess the question is would there need to be a second cutoff. Would you just say if your application is in by this day and it's accepted, then, you may be heard either the first or that third Thursday, if the application isn't accepted by staff within, you know, seven days, then, you know, you have -- you're going to be on the next hearing schedule. I don't know that you need to have that -- need to have that second cutoff. I can just see that there might be a mad rush by having that second cutoff. You're either in and accepted or you're not. Borup: But wouldn't that decrease the mad rush? Because right now it's once a month, so you got to rush for that, if you realize, well, I can turn it in two weeks later, so I don't have to rush right now. Wardle: I still think it would be mad rush. If people know that they can push two -- they can push two weeks later, if they know they are going to miss that first one -- Borup: But that's the way it is now. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 93 of 96 Wardle: Well, if you miss the first one, you're on for the next monthly, probably. I know, for example, the City of Boise it has to be in by that last Thursday for the last Tuesday -- Borup: Oh. You're right. Yes. Wardle: -- but they tell you up front that you may be heard either the first, the second, or the third Monday of that month and that's just the way it is, so you know going in that you're going to be heard during the month, you just don't know exactly where you're going to be heard and that seems to work -- that's worked for us pretty well there. Borup: Well, that's what we have been doing -- essentially, that's what we have already been doing. Wardle: But there is a cap here. I mean if you're not one of those first six, there is a very good likelihood that you're going to be pushed a month. Borup: Well, as you can see by our agenda, six has not been a magic number, but -- Wardle: Right. Borup: We have been -- I've tried to look at how long it looks like each application is going to take. Powell: I don't think that Boise City does it way. You hit a cutoff -- unless they changed it recently, you hit a cutoff, you're on for that agenda. Wardle: If you look at their schedule, they say they are going to have hearings, if needed, definitely on that first, but they might have hearings the second and third Mondays as well, depending on how many applications they have received. You're not guaranteed to be on that first meeting, but you could still do a first in, first out. I mean I don't have a big opinion. I'm pretty happy with the process that's here. I think staff has been very responsive and helpful to the development community to get applicants through. I have done a project in Canyon County, like Anna said, and it's a nightmare. I -- I don't know that you need to make an improvement, but anything you do would be well received. Powell: Well, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission -- thank you, Jonathan. Maybe what we could do is just expand that second hearing -- or expand the total number -- if you feel like in a two hearing period you can get through more than seven projects, rather than postponing them to the next month, we can just postpone them to the next hearing. Right now it's -- you take six or seven for the first hearing, sometimes Chairman Borup will authorize putting one on the second hearing that wasn't -- didn't make that first cut and we will move them to the second hearing. Otherwise, they go to the second month -- or the next month. Maybe what we do is just say -- similar to what Jonathan said. We take in everything that's done we divvy them out between the two hearings and, then -- but just have the one cutoff. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 94 of 96 Borup: That's what we are doing now, other than -- other than we have been keeping a second meeting real light. Powell: Right and what we -- Borup: Now we will just try to even them out a little more. Centers: Yes. That's what we wanted originally. Powell: Okay. Centers: You can keep the one cutoff and -- Powell: I guess it's a little more arbitrary, but -- Centers: Well, you know the ones that take longer, you know. You can pretty well tell those. Sometimes you're surprised, but -- Borup: The other option we could still maybe not do anything, wait and ask for some input from the development community and -- if you want to do that. Powell: I don't think they are going to care too much one way or the other, as long as we don't start postponing them -- Borup: Well, I agree. I mean if Canyon County is really taking that long, that's probably what they don't want to see. Okay. Well, I mean that's really my goal is just to move it along, so everyone gets done in a timely manner. Powell: Well, I will give it a try working with the Chair to balance those out and if it seems like it's not working, we will change it. Until, then, let's just give it a try and not change the system right now. Rohm: I think that you should address the continuances as you're going through this thought process, though. That's one of the things that happens is if it's continued, because the next agenda is so packed, it's put off for a month and if you get to that balance point, then, your -- when you do have to continue, you will only have to continue to the next meeting. Borup: Well, that's one of the reasons for not -- for keeping that second meeting a little lighter, so you can handle continued. One of the things, oftentimes, we look at is what's the chance of this thing being continued. If staff says, well, there is a lot of issues that aren't worked out and it doesn't look like they are going to be worked out, so the odds are maybe good that it will be continued and you got to kind of allow for that. Rohm: Just think about continuances when you're setting that up, I guess. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 95 of 96 Borup: I guess that's what we can look at, if it's being continued maybe because the applicant didn't make a very diligent effort of working out with staff, it would be continued to the following month, rather than the following meeting. Centers: Well, when I was pushing for it, I was just relaying on staff to look at them and say, you know, separate them and try to even it out, so we had, you know, two 10:30 or 11:00 meetings, rather than a 1:00 and 7:00 or 8:00. Powell: We will give it a try. I think we can do something. Zaremba: The one thing I would ask on a similar subject is -- is your cutoff date adequate? Always trying to give staff enough time to send all the stuff out, get all the stuff back, interpreted -- you have a lot of work to do in a small space of time on each project. Powell: We have been reviewing them more before we accept them. We have been taking a look at them as staff and criticizing whether or not they really are ready to accept it -- beyond do they meet the code requirements, it's do we really have everything we need to adequately evaluate this application. We have been kind of digging into to -- or getting a little more time from ourselves by looking into those applications in more than a perfunctory way before we accept them. Zaremba: Pre-application work, I guess you call it. Powell: Well, yes. Yes. We have the pre-application meetings and, then, we kind of brainstorm on, you know, did they do what we asked them to do in the pre-application meeting. Do we really have what we need, you know, kind of -- I told them I wanted this, this, and this and I have only got this, so don't take it. I mean, you know, we have been a little harder. We have been trying to get them those comments quite quickly, so that we can at least get back to them. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Well, we don't seem to have the last minute stuff like we used to. Something's going better. Powell: Yes. Then, in addition to that, we are reviewing them as the assignments are handed out, we are looking at them again and going over them as a group to bring up any Site Plan issues or trying to identify them early, so that the planners can call the applicant earlier on. Borup: Thank you. Powell: Trying to make your job easier. Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting September 4, 2003 Page 96 of 96 Borup: Okay. One more motion. Zaremba: So moved. Rohm: Second. Centers: To adjourn. Borup: It was to adjourn, yes. Zaremba: Did we vote? Borup: Oh. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Motion carried. Meeting dismissed 11:30. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:30 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / KEITH BORUP, CHAIRMAN DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK