Loading...
2004 02-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 5, 2004 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Keith Borup. Members Present: Chairman Keith Borup, Commissioner Michael Rohm, Commissioner Leslie Mathes, Commissioner David Zaremba, and Commissioner David Moe. Others Present: Chris Gabbert, Jessica Johnson, Bruce Freckleton, Anna Powell, Craig Hood, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Steve Siddoway, Jolene Robles, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance: Roll-call ___X___ David Zaremba ___X___ David Moe ___X___ Leslie Mathes ___X___ Michael Rohm ___X___Chairman Keith Borup Borup: Okay. We'd like to begin our regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for February 5th and start with our roll call. Maybe before I do that, I might just mention we welcome our new Commissioner here, Mr. David Moe. Commissioner Moe now. Moe: Oh, boy. Borup: Welcome. This is his first meeting tonight, so we'll see if we can break him in. Okay. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Borup: First Item, adoption of the agenda. Anyone see any changes or anything on the agenda that need to be – Item 3: Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of December 4, 2003 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting: Borup: If not, our meeting for December 4th -- minutes for December 4th. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the minutes of December 4, 2003, as written. Rohm: I'll second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 2 of 64 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4: Public Hearing: PP 03-043 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 11 commercial building lots 1 common lot on 15.8 acres in a C-G zone for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron – northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road: Item 5: Public Hearing: CUP 03-066 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit (Planned Development) for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron – northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. Okay. I'd like to -- our first item is Sparrowhawk Subdivision. We have two hearings related to that and we'd like to open Public Hearing PP 03-043, request for preliminary plat approval for 11 commercial building lots and one common lot on 15.8 acres in a C-G for Sparrowhawk Subdivision, and CUP 03-066, Conditional Use Permit for modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit. I'd like to open both hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The applicant has applied for a preliminary plat and a Conditional Use Permit planned development approval of 11 buildable lots and one other common lot on 15.8 acres of C-G zoned property. The site is located on the northeast corner of Franklin Road and Nola Road. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as commercial. To the north of this site, as you can see, there is an industrial subdivision with industrial uses. And, then, right on the corner there is an existing single family home in this location on this lot here, so this site kind of does this L-shape around that existing home. To the west of the site is a vacant C-G zoned property. To the south is single family homes here and there are some single family homes over in this area as well. To the east of this site is -- and it doesn't show up here on this aerial -- the Foothills Apartments recently constructed. Within the 11 buildable lots the applicant is requesting conceptual CUP approval of 43,070 square feet of office space, 33,912 square feet of commercial space, 6,000 square feet of retail service space and 25,125 square feet for self storage units. The city has previously approved the zoning, a conceptual CUP for 12 commercial buildings in a three lot commercial subdivision called Sparrowhawk for this site. The subject application is proposed to modify the previously approved CUP. As part of the planned development the applicant is requesting to defer construction of the required 35 foot landscape buffer along Franklin Road. The applicant is also requesting alternative compliance to the required landscape buffer along the north property line. I'll just briefly teach on both of those issues. Meridian City Code requires a 20 foot landscape buffer between an industrial use and a commercial use, usually provided by the higher intense use, in this case it would be an industrial use. The industrial use has not provided that prior to the city having a landscape ordinance, so that makes this applicant the bearer of the 20 foot landscape buffer. They are providing a 15 foot buffer along that north property line Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 3 of 64 here. These are the storage units here and they have, as you can see here, some landscaping along that property line here and, then, the landscaping buffer adjacent to Franklin Road, the site has a considerable amount of frontage, including the frontage with the -- what was Lot 3 of Sparrowhawk, but they are asking that that -- those improvements be deferred. Staff is recommending -- it's outlined in the staff report -- that the applicant be granted be 18 months after the city engineer's signature on the final plat to put those construction -- to put those materials in -- landscape materials. And this is because Franklin Road, as you may know, is scheduled for roadway improvements by the highway district to be completed roughly in the next year or so and, then, that allows the applicant some time to do his grading on site as well without destroying some landscaping. The applicant is proposing to construct a couple of picnic benches just outside of the entrances as amenities for the planned development and staff also believes that the design is a little bit different and we believe that that should be a visual amenity, a design amenity, for this commercial development. You may have -- the parks department just drafted a memo, I believe it was two days ago, dated the 3rd, I believe, and they say that they need -- there would be 62 caliper inches of trees that need to be mitigated for on site. This is actually covered not specifically to the 62 inches, but it is a condition in the staff report. Condition number five on page seven does cover that. It generically states that any trees removed that are greater than four inches in caliper need to be mitigated for. So that is covered. If you'd like to make that more specific to add the parks caliper inches, that would be fine, too. And, then, just in the packet that I got today there is a letter from John Anderson, who owns that single family home I pointed out earlier in the northwest corner of this site and he was requesting in his letter that the subject applicant enter into a license agreement with the water users association of the Barker Lateral, Tap 42-48, prior to relocation of the piping of the Barker and that basically will just insure that the piping and relocation of that allows the water to flow during irrigation season and he just wants to have an eye on that and make sure that that -- that all the water is delivered. I went through the old -- the staff report for Sparrowhawk One and this was not a site specific condition, but the city did adopt the recommendation of the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, which stated that -- excuse me -- that the Barker did cross this site and needed to be relocated in accordance with Meridian City Code. So, if you want to add some language to that one, that's fine, too. I just wanted to call your attention to that recently received letter. And, then, in the staff report we would like the applicant to clarify the ownership and maintenance of the pressurized irrigation system for the subject development. It states that the owner of the system is not the applicant, is the owner of the property, so just some clarification who is going to be owning and maintaining the pressurized irrigation system. And with that I believe that concludes staff's report and we are recommending approval of the subject application with the conditions outlined and that are before you. So, I will stand for any questions you have. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Zaremba: I have a comment. In the past when we make a motion regarding -- particularly approval of the thing and pass it on to the City Council, we always say including all staff comments, and I have always figured that that included the police Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 4 of 64 department and the fire department and the others, but I suppose it's been legally unclear whether those were included. To have them added into your report, as I see for the first time tonight in several others, that perhaps it's a new policy of our department, I think that eliminates any of the vagueness that we were previously leaving about whether or not the fire department's comments are included or the parks department's comments are included and I thoroughly support that new idea. I think it's a great idea to have them right in your staff report to include the comments of the other staff and departments and I congratulate you all for doing that. Powell: Thank you on behalf of my staff. I accept the nomination. No. I wanted to let you know why that is they ended up there and it's more than it would appear. We are now doing comments meetings -- we are trying to do them before staff has to write their staff reports and we were able, I think on this one, to get representatives from the sanitation department -- or the sanitation service provider and from fire department -- at other ones we were able to get the school district there and we are still working on getting the police there. They will be there this next week, hopefully. So, we are meeting as a group looking these things over and deciding what the comments are as a group there, so that we can work together and hash out some of these issues before they get to you. Our hope is that we don't end up with last minute comments from one of the other agencies that we can't accommodate or haven't already accounted for in the staff report. So, it is -- we are meeting together and doing comments together. So, that's why they are in there. And you probably will start to see fewer department -- separate fire department letters, separate SSC letters, separate -- all of those. Unless there is a change from when we had our comments meeting, you probably won't see letters from them, they will just be folded into the staff report. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from any of the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make their presentation? And it looks like there are probably very few questions that staff had, so if you'd like to go ahead. Waldron: My name is David Waldron. I'm at the current time the project coordinator. Dee Lynn is the sole owner of the property at this moment, so I'm here to present the concept and answer questions. I was asked to review and analyze the previous concept and perhaps consider some improvements and this new concept does reflect the new ideas and, very generally, it was to back off of the density significantly. I think we went from about 130 some thousand square feet down to about 100,000 square feet. So, this is our new project. It's less rigid, less -- less dense, like I said. Borup: For the audience, he's showing us the same thing that's up on the screen. Zaremba: And you do need to speak into the microphone if you would, though, please. Waldron: As can you tell, the office part of this is designed in a campus-type concept, which I feel is quite a bit more presentable from the street and will look a lot better. We have a lot more landscaping. We have almost twice the parking shown on this site that's required by the city. So, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. It's been through all the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 5 of 64 details in the previous presentation and we are adhering to everything. I will -- Craig mentioned our request to delay construction of the berm for 18 months and that's simply to avoid us constructing it now and, then, having a lot of other construction damaging the landscaping, so it just makes sense to delay that and do it at a later time. I do want to point out that the original PD included the apartment project, which is under construction at this time, and so it's very likely that that will be finished sometime this late spring or summer. And one technical point is I think in the construction -- or in the development agreement that exists currently, it's required that this landscaping be in place before they pull an occupancy permit and I have talked to the staff a little bit about this and I believe their feeling is that we could amend that in the development agreement, so that in the summer they could go ahead and complete their project, which would include the landscaping, and allow them to pull permits on that and as we are going to move forward with the construction. That's pretty much everything that I have. Borup: So, you said they would complete their landscaping before on that project? Waldron: Right. And I think that the developer is here if you have anymore specific questions. Borup: We will see on that. Then, I think -- did you address the irrigation or -- Waldron: Yes. We are showing -- you will see on the preliminary plat drawing that we show the irrigation of -- pressure irrigation located in the berm and it will run the full length of our property in the -- Borup: No. I mean as far as ownership and also -- Waldron: The ownership initially will be Dee Lynn, who is the current owner of the property. Borup: So, that will be specified in some other submittals? Waldron: Right. Borup: What was the other question I had on that? Oh. The comment on -- any comment Mr. Anderson's letter? Waldron: Yeah. This is the first I have heard of that. Borup: So, you have not seen a copy of that yet? Waldron: I have not. I guess my first reaction is I don't see a problem with it. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 6 of 64 Borup: Yeah. I think his concern was just that it mentioned there a hundred users -- I assume down line, downstream, that -- and they want to make sure that they will be coordinated and -- Waldron: Yeah. I understand that. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well, just for your knowledge, since you haven't seen it, he does emphasize that they want to make sure that they have water flow by March 15th. So, that whatever you need to do to tear the property up doesn't delay their water -- Waldron: March 15th of this year? Zaremba: Yeah. Waldron: I see. Borup: You want a copy of -- here is a copy of the letter. You can keep that. Waldron: Yeah. I don't know if I can stand here and solve everything. I guess I need a little time to think this through. Borup: Well, I mean before March or after October. Waldron: Yeah. Zaremba: Well, just so you work around it, so that they are not prevented during their watering cycle. Waldron: Yeah. I think that's doable. I really do. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I would ask a couple of questions if I may. Waldron: Certainly. Zaremba: Well, a comment first. I personally agree with the idea of not doing the Franklin Road landscaping until the highway district is done and you're graded and stuff like that. I think that's very wise and supportable as an amendment or adjustment or waiver or whatever we call it. Second, since ACHD has the policy of not having a new roadway torn up for five years, is it your anticipation that you will try and connect to water and sewer and get them in there before they finish their road surfacing? Waldron: Yes. Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 7 of 64 Zaremba: Okay. Then, the last piece from the last hearing -- and maybe this has gone away, but if this is the John Anderson property -- Waldron: Correct. Zaremba: -- one of his concerns -- there was a plan to have a pathway along here. One of his concerns was that that pathway be moved away from his fenceline to help him with privacy. I don't at the moment see any pathway at all. Has that been eliminated or -- Waldron: Yes, it has. Zaremba: Okay. So, his privacy issue is satisfied by not having any pathway. Waldron: Right. Zaremba: Now, was that pathway a city requirement or is that going away? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission -- Zaremba: I kind of dumped that on you quickly, didn't I? Hood: That's all right. And I was going to recall and I -- correctly. There is a sidewalk -- it's not a pathway necessarily, but there is a five foot walk that ties into the Nola Road sidewalk in an east-west direction. There isn't one that goes north-south and around, but there is a sidewalk on this plan. Zaremba: The one you're pointing out, though, has all of the landscaping behind -- Hood: Yeah. It's not right adjacent, there is landscaping in between. Correct. Zaremba: Was there a requirement to have a pathway through there? Hood: And I believe the previous requirement was -- it was part of the amenity for the previous PD, which this is amending that requirement, so -- Zaremba: Good. I'm satisfied. Rohm: So, are the amenities being addressed? Are there enough amenities in this proposal to satisfy staff? Hood: Staff is satisfied, yes. Rohm: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 8 of 64 Borup: Okay. Anyone else have any other comments? Thank you, Mr. Waldron. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify? Come on up. Cullen: I may be able to clarify this a little better for you. John Anderson -- I'm Rod Cullen. I'm sorry. 1821 East Franklin Road. John Anderson had me come in his behalf, because he's on vacation, and his main concern with the irrigation is that we were told at another meeting that we came to, I and John also, that he was to review all the plans on the irrigation and he has never received those. Borup: I think it's probably because they are not completed yet. Cullen: Yeah. And he's never been involved in anything up to this point and I think the reason being is because the owner of said property, we have fought with irrigation for the past ten years that she's owned the property trying to keep water flow through that area, so we have a real big concern about that. And that was one of the main concerns. And I do have this letter and I can give it to whoever -- Borup: We have got copies of it. Cullen: You have got copies of it? Okay. And that's my main person, because I live just straight across the street from this development. Right here. And our home is right here and he is right next door also. I live right here at this property and Arnold Burr is right here. He came in with me also. We came to another meeting previously that they were going to develop this property next to me and this has water that flows across this area that waters my whole bottom piece of ground. Well, I haven't had water on that for a year now that they have started doing the work over here. So, we are really concerned to make sure that we have irrigation on this other, too. And I know this is going to be a different deal and I'll address it as it comes. But that shows our concern on this other area. Zaremba: I'm not understanding -- I can understand how John Anderson's water would go through this property, but you're saying your water delivery comes through this property? Cullen: Yeah. What happens is the water comes across here through this whole property all the way down through here, it feeds over into John Anderson's place here and it comes across the road here and feeds all this area. Zaremba: I see. Cullen: This has also being fed through Greenhill Estates and they have water that comes down and goes into another ditch here and that ditch is fed through this whole area here that was runoff, it fed this whole bottom piece of my ground, and they just shut that water off and they dumped it straight down into the Five Mile Creek now, so I don't have any water coming to this lower piece of my ground. So, I'm concerned, obviously, about this other. I can still feed water down through here, but I'm going to Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 9 of 64 have to build it up and put in piping and everything now because of that. And this is Ron Osborn's property and I will discuss that with him later, but that's just to give you an idea of what we are dealing with. Zaremba: The water that feeds the front of your property comes through this property? Cullen: Absolutely. Absolutely. And Arnold Burr also. Right here. It feeds all this ground. Everything here. Plus John Anderson's over here. So, it was original Barker Lateral that watered all the Barker place here. They took out the pond that held water for irrigation and that's where they built that right over here that they are putting in that apartment complex, that used to be a pond that is all part of that irrigation, they just took it out. That's pretty much all I have. Borup: Okay. Any questions? Okay. Anyone else? Come on forward. Cook: My name is Darrin Cook, I'm here representing the developer and the owner of the Foothills Apartment complex that is just to the east of the parcel that we are talking about tonight. I can clarify a couple of issues that have been raised. I can tell you that through the subdivision covenants that have been recorded for the Sparrowhawk Subdivision as a whole, we are going to install, maintain, and own the landscape buffer that's in front of our parcel that fronts Franklin. So, the remainder of that, as Mr. Waldron represented, will be Dee Lynn's responsibility for now, but I would envision that transferring to, you know, whatever entity that she sells the parcel to ultimately. I do want to let the Commission know that I am here tonight in support of Mr. Waldron's request. We have been working diligently with the City of Meridian and ACHD on the Franklin Road improvements, not just in front of our parcel, but the balance of this, and it really does make a lot of sense to defer the improvement of this landscape buffer to such time as the road, the sidewalks, the curb and gutter and so forth are in place, as well as Mr. Waldron's request, you know, for the development of the parcel as well, as it is all comes together it becomes an integral part of the construction of these improvements as well. I do have two specific items that I feel to need be addressed tonight by the Commission in the amendment of this Conditional Use Permit as it exists. The first would be in the original development agreement and the Conditional Use Permit -- and I quote -- and this is coming from page 13 and I can certainly get this to the staff, but one of the City Council comments that came about in conditional use after the Commission referred it, it says: As part of the original development agreement, annexation, and the preliminary plat, the requirement shall be to construct all the perimeter landscaping prior to any occupancies on this site, which will include, down to Nola Road, the 35 foot landscape setback. So, my concern is, in fact, that I have the apartments constructed and ready to occupy by July and because of the deferral -- you know, this 18 months, these landscape improvements are, in fact, not in place, which means that I cannot pull my occupancy permits. Borup: I think that's what -- Mr. Hood was referring to that, that that could be amended in the development agreement. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 10 of 64 Cook: Right. I just wanted to make sure that we are all on the same page. Borup: And that would be the intention. Sure. Cook: The second item that I would point out to the Commission is part of the original preliminary plat. It was proposed that a six foot cedar fence was constructed on the boundary of the original Sparrowhawk Subdivision, which included Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3. As part of Mr. Waldron's proposal, I think they are changing the wood fence to a chain link fence for the portions of the property line that don't have a fence constructed there. I would also just ask that going into this that we are all in agreement that the chain link fence is acceptable, in lieu of the wood fence, because of long term -- mostly because of long-term maintenance issues. We are proposing to construct our portion of that fence, so that it's neat and it's clean and -- you know, and it will stand for a much longer period of time than perhaps the wood fence would and that is, actually, an integral part of Mr. Waldron's proposal. I just want to make sure that it's all out there and that we are -- that we are discussing it and, you know, we know where we are proceeding from here on out. The last clarification, just for your information, I have constructed as of today all of the water improvements, including stubs to the other lots that are part of the Sparrowhawk Subdivision. So, the infrastructure is there. We are currently constructing the sewer line. The concern of utilities coming in later after ACHD has widened the road has actually been addressed and, to my knowledge, I think that my office and the city's office are all on the same page there. So, thank you for your time and, once again, I just want to reiterate that Mr. Waldron's proposal does make a lot of sense coming from my perspective. Borup: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Cook? I might mention the staff report did mention that, the proposed chain link fence. Do we have anyone else that would like to come forward? Seeing none, Commissioners? Any final comments from the staff? Okay. Zaremba: I don't know if we need a clarification on the -- the issue of Barker Lateral Tap 42-48. It's always a rule that they must deliver the historic water where and when and in the quantities. Do we need to ask for any additional agreement on that? Borup: Probably the only thing that's different from normal is Mr. Anderson wanting to review the plans. Zaremba: I do remember that subject coming up and I don't remember whether it -- whether it was a gentlemen's agreement or whether it actually got into the development agreement that he would have input to it. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I look at -- after receiving that letter from Mr. Anderson, as well as Nampa-Meridian, excuse me, this is not one of their laterals, so Mr. Anderson is the water master and secretary of the Barker Lateral Users Association or whatever the name is, so he will be reviewing that, I believe, when that happens and in Nampa-Meridian's letter they request -- which you will adopt. This kind of goes to what you were talking about earlier -- with your motion you usually adopt all Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 11 of 64 of staff's comments and agency comments. So, in that agency comment from Nampa- Meridian, it does require them to -- you know, they can't stop delivery of water during irrigation season and the same, you know, inches -- miner inches of water need to be delivered as previous prior to development and those type of things. So, the previous approval on this site did not specifically say John Anderson has to review the plans, but it did say that all the irrigation relocation and tiling thereof needs to be approved in accordance with Meridian City Code, which requires, you know, other review. Zaremba: And that would bring him into it? Hood: Exactly. Zaremba: Okay. Not that it's particularly relevant, but there is a John Anderson that works for Nampa-Meridian. Is it the same person? Okay. So, he would know. I guess my only other question would be of staff. According to our Ada County Highway District notes, they are not actually planning to bring this before the commission -- their commission until February -- oh, February 28, 2001? Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Never mind. So, they have seen it, they know what they are doing, ACHD isn't going to make any objections to this. Okay. That being the case, I have asked all of my questions. Borup: Anything else? Okay. I think we still have -- Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Public Hearing on these two items be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the public hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: It doesn't sound like we have got any changes to the staff report, do we? Zaremba: I don't believe so. There was one item noted, which I did note, and I'm trying to find now where that went. Rohm: On page seven. Zaremba: Yeah. Page seven. Borup: On the irrigation? Zaremba: On the parks department. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 12 of 64 Borup: Oh. On the tree mitigation. Zaremba: Yes. Okay. In that case, I believe I'm ready. Mr. Chairman. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 4 on our agenda, PP 03-043, request for preliminary plat approval for 11 commercial building lots, one common lot, on 15.8 acres in a C-G zone for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron, northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the city clerk February 2, 2004, with one minor amendment. On page seven, paragraph five, the second bullet, add a sentence on the end of that that says refer to Meridian Parks and Recreation letter of February 3, 2004, written by Elroy Huff, regarding mitigation of 62 inches of -- 62 caliper inches of trees. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: I'm sorry, did you do both of them? Zaremba: No. I only did one, but you didn't say whether it carried or not. Motion carries? Borup: Motion carries. Zaremba: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 5 on our agenda, CUP 03-066, request for a Conditional Use Permit for modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit planned development for Sparrowhawk Subdivision by David Waldron, northeast corner of North Nola Road and East Franklin Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2003, received by the city clerk February 2nd -- I'm sorry. 2004. Received by the city clerk February 2nd, 2004, with no changes. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? And motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Public Hearing: PP 03-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 18 building lots and 3 other lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 13 of 64 Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering – north of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road: Item 7: Public Hearing: CUP 03-069 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for 18 residential 4-plex buildings on one lot in a L- O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering – north of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road: Borup: Okay. Thank you. Next item is Roundtree Subdivision, Public Hearing PP 03- 045, request for preliminary plat approval of 18 building lots and three other lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for the proposed Roundtree Subdivision. Accompanying that is CUP 03-069, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for 18 residential four-plex buildings on one lot in an L-O zone for the proposed Roundtree Subdivision. We'd like to open both public hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat and CUP approval for a planned development on 5.7 acres of land located on the south side of Pine Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet east of Linder Road. The site -- the subject site is designated high density residential on the 2000 Comprehensive Future Land Use Map and is currently zoned L-O. The site is known as Lot 2, Block 1, Treymore Subdivision and is currently vacant. The subject site is in this location. On the north side of the site -- and, again, my aerial is a little bit out of date, the Treymore Senior Apartments are in this location here on Lot 1 of Treymore. To the south the railroad tracks run in this location on the southern boundary of this site. To the east there is a seven acre -- a little over seven acres vacant parcel at this time. The owner of that site has submitted -- recently submitted to the city a development application for that site, which you will probably be seeing here within the next couple of months anyways. To the west is the Sunbridge Living Center. The submitted preliminary plat proposes to subdivide the existing 5.7 acre lot into 18 multi-family residential lots and three common lots. The CUP proposal includes 18 multi-family buildings, each containing one four-plex structure, for a total of 72 units. The CUP includes a request for reduced side and rear setbacks for the buildings and reduced lot frontage in the L-O zone. As part of the Treymore development, a 50 foot wide access easement was approved and constructed to intersect Pine Avenue near the west property line and that's the flag portion of the subject site. This driveway is currently constructed to approximately there before crossing the lateral here. It's 25 feet wide, I believe, from the edge of pavement to the edge curb along the east side. As amenities for the subject PD, the applicant is proposing to construct a picnic area, complete with a barbecue pit, benches, and tables on Lot 20, Block 1, which is in this location here. And on Lot 10, Block 1, the applicant is proposing to construct a sand volleyball court and that is this location here. Okay. Just a couple of things to hit on. There are the elevations for the units. And I'm going to -- just got a letter from the applicant, dated February 4th -- I don't know if you all have that as well. It was addressed to this board. I'm going to address the two issues that this applicant has brought up in this letter and the first one is condition five of the CUP on page seven -- or, excuse me, condition five of the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 14 of 64 preliminary plat on page seven and staff is okay with the applicant's proposed language there. It's at the bottom of page one, but basically what he's added is prior to the application for the eighth four-plex building -- the building permit for the eighth four-plex and the fire department -- the International Fire Code requires that a secondary access be provided to 101st multi-family unit on a single access, so you can have up to 100 multi-family units on a single access point. With the 72 units in Treymore Senior and the 72 here, they would go over on the single access point. So, secondary access is required for the full build out of this site. They are just asking to pull those first seven building permits to go to that maximum 100 prior to being required to construct the secondary access. So, we are all right with that one. The other one is on page 14 of the staff report and it is condition five of the CUP and staff will leave that up to the Commission and, then, the City Council to determine if the proposed usable private open space meets the intent of the ordinance. It's actually -- excuse me. These multi- family developments it's often a tough time of interpretation of how -- what that really means, such as a patio or deck is how the code reads. The applicant is including that backyard, basically, as private usable open space, with a 48 square foot patio for each unit. So, I'm not willing to take a stand and say that's sufficient, I will leave that up to this board. That has been deviated from in the past, but I will let the applicant sell that to you a little bit more. And that picture -- I apologize, the picture -- maybe the applicant has a better one for you. The picture on the far bottom right there does show patios that I believe are to scale, so those would be approximately a 48 foot back patio on those -- those units and they are, you know, private per dwelling unit and the backyards, if you can call them a backyard, I guess are 200 square feet. So, within that you would have a 48 foot slab back there for the patio. Staff is recommending approval of this subject development, with the conditions included in the staff report and that concludes staff's report. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Would the -- Zaremba: I have one, actually. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: And this is something we have circled around on other applications that are asking for reduced setbacks on things. If I remember correctly, there was no fencing plan provided with this one, and my thought is that on page 14, paragraph two, where we are saying that we would agree with the setbacks that they are requesting, under paragraph two my inclination would be to add a third item, something like: No fencing shall be built closer to any building than five feet per story. In other words, where a two store building is setback only five feet from the property line and, therefore, the distance between the two buildings is ten feet, to have a fence down the middle of that would seriously restrict the fire department's access and I'm asking if staff would be comfortable with a requirement that we say there can't be a fence in the location and to define that, I'm saying it can't be closer to any building than five feet per story. So, on a two story building they couldn't have a fence between them, but they could -- if there Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 15 of 64 were not two buildings there, it could be ten feet away from the building. Is that a reasonable -- Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, I don't have any problems with that. You might just want to clarify with the applicant, but I don't believe that they are proposing any internal fencing and the requirement we were talking about was perimeter fencing, that's usually where we considered -- you bring up a good point, the fencing there with the fire department access and pulling hoses around fences internally could pose a problem, so I don't have a problem with that. Zaremba: I'm just thinking sometime in the future somebody could decide, even if it's not the present plan to put a fence in there, somebody in the future could say, hey, I want a fence down here and I think we should protect ourselves. I'll ask the applicant if they can live with that. I just wanted to make sure staff could live with it. Borup: Okay. Is that your only question? Okay. Rohm: I had a question on the patios. Staff comment says you don't necessarily like the 48 square foot. Do you have a proposed square footage for a patio that you would like to see them -- the developer install or -- it would be nice to have an idea of where we are going with this. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, I don't necessarily have a preference. I don't know where a hundred square feet came from. I'm just -- I don't have -- well, other than being in the ordinance, I don't know how a hundred feet got to be adopted as the standard. Rohm: Okay. That is the standard is a hundred square feet, not the 48 that they are proposing. Borup: Well, a hundred feet of open -- how is it worded? Hood: Private usable open space. Borup: Well, it doesn't say it has to be in concrete, it just needs to be that space. Is that a correct interpretation? Usable is the other part of that, so -- Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Well -- and where it has come up in other issues is where they had a second floor balcony that was small and they were trying to count the stair well and the landing as part of their open space, but that's not really usable and where we have made exceptions, the whole unit had a separate barbecue pit area, although that one, eventually, was not approved by the City Council either, so -- if we are saying the real usable open space is the 200 square feet, of which 28 feet -- or 48 feet is cement, that would seem to me to satisfy. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 16 of 64 Borup: And the designs that we are looking at now seem to be adequate. Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Is the applicant here? Would they like to make their presentation? Rennison: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, John Rennison, 50 Broadway, Suite B, in Boise. And just to answer a couple of those questions -- I think I can field both of them - - or attempt to. Number one, on the fence -- the fence issue, just clarifying with my clients, who are also here in the audience tonight, we don't anticipate or don't plan to have any internal fences, just on the exterior, with one potential exception, and that is on the Nine Mile, we haven't completely resolved -- this, again, would be work in progress with Nampa-Meridian, of course, to figure out where we can put our fence and where we cannot put our fence, but on the south side of that drain, somewhere in between the drain itself and the building there, we do envision a fence along that portion there, whether it sits on the easement line or whether it sits somewhere further into the easement is yet to be determined. Borup: Is he working on possible encroachment agreement with them? Rennison: That's correct. That's what we envision. There is a lot of space there that, frankly, in our opinion, could be landscaped and put to better use, rather than weeds. Borup: Do you know which side they are using for maintenance? Rennison: I think the service road right now is, actually, on the north side. Borup: Okay. You should have -- I would think you would be able to get an encroachment agreement there. Rennison: We are optimistic. Zaremba: Yeah. Well, in that case, since you have no plans to put fencing there, you would not be hurt by the requirement that it can't be too close to the building and that should be okay with you, it would just protect us from some potential future owner who might have a different opinion. Rennison: I think I can represent my clients in that that they would be okay with that. Zaremba: Yeah. Since you don't have plans to put a fence anyhow, where would -- excuse me -- where we would require it if it were put in doesn't really affect you. Rennison: Yes. I think we are all in agreement. Zaremba: Just my lips aren't working today. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 17 of 64 Rennison: The other one I guess goes to the -- I already lost track, actually. Zaremba: The open area -- Rennison: The open area, yeah. I presume that everybody is looking at this illustration. I wouldn't -- obviously, we can't see what exactly what he's looking at, but there is a -- just a small graphic in the back of the letter that we wrote in response to the staff report, just to add a little clarification of the dimensions in the scale of things -- by the way, this is little sketch is not to scale, but it's actual pretty darn close to being representative. But that's the concept of what we are trying to achieve. The property line in some locations can potentially be just ten feet from the building and in which case there is a -- one or two situations I think in the site where there is a building that's potentially ten feet, again, away from the property line and if the sidewalk -- or the -- excuse me, the patio was 10-by-10, they would be connected and that's one of the things, I guess, we are trying to steer away from, is just to have a little actual green -- or lawn in between the patios themselves. I might move -- if there is anymore questions on that, I might just move off of that topic. Borup: I think we are fine. Rennison: Well, I did want to thank staff for helping us put this thing together. They did a great job. We are in agreement with the staff report and the conditions contained therein. We did have just two clarifications or request for minor modifications to some of the language and that's what's contained in this letter dated February 4th from my office, which I think everybody has, and which Craig just talked about. So, I won't belabor that issue any further. With one exception and that is the fire department access here, that's kind of a -- somewhat of a hot topic, if you will, but we mostly have it resolved. The -- as Craig mentioned, the city has accepted -- and I need to clarify this, but the city has accepted an application for what's called Rock Creek development -- is that right? So, it has been submitted and accepted and that is for the property to the east of us, immediately east. That's to the right-hand side of that sheet there. And we have been talking with the developers there and the applicant Treasure Valley Development Company on the -- working to help each other out and they are going to be faced with the same issue of needing a secondary access. It pretty much makes sense that we connect the two projects and provide an access -- our secondary emergency access out through their parcel, their secondary emergency access out through our parcel -- pretty straight forward. We have -- I, actually, drew up a simple agreement between the other applicant for the Rock Creek development, just to kind of resolve the matter and develop the understanding that both parcels will work together to provide that emergency access and I have a -- several copies of the agreement itself, which, if you care to read, it's only one page, but it's -- you haven't seen it up until now. I can either hand it or I can read it if you can -- I'm an engineer, I read horrible, but -- Borup: And I don't know -- I think we are okay on that. You are okay -- I mean your wording was on the seven units; is that correct? That -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 18 of 64 Rennison: Yeah. Okay. Borup: Yeah. That would be a maximum seven units and so this -- that would have to be taken care of before we would be able to proceed. Rennison: That's correct. The building permit would be subject to this secondary emergency access. What I wanted to make -- Borup: Maybe since you did mention it, we ought to maybe have it in the file for the clerk. Rennison: Terrific. Yeah. What I did want to make clear is that secondary access has already been understood. We have talked back and forth and we have a written agreement, which I just got a copy of tonight, that has been executed by the applicant for the Rock Creek development project and just to summarize, it says we mutually agree on a secondary emergency access, end of point, and they have signed it and so we need to do the same, but we can enter that into the public record tonight, too. Borup: Right here. Rennison: This is my only copy. Borup: Well, is that a photocopy, then? Rennison: Yeah. These are -- Borup: That's what you referred to, so that's fine. Rennison: Well, they are the same thing. Borup: This would be adequate. it's the same wording. Rennison: It's the same thing. Borup: Yeah. We don't need to take your -- Zaremba: Let's see. I guess I would want clarification from staff. It's a great deal of comfort to know that the secondary access is in the plan and that you're working cooperative with the neighbor, but I would still assume that the eighth building permit can't be withdrawn until that access is in place. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, that's correct. Even this agreement is there, the access itself hasn't been constructed, so that would need to be in place prior to that -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 19 of 64 Zaremba: So, we are really not changing anything but the staff -- Hood: The condition should stay as the applicant has amended and the staff originally -- Zaremba: And I encourage you to pursue that and move it along. Rennison: Yeah. We are anxious for it, too. Zaremba: Okay. Rennison: Their application is -- again, like Craig mentioned, one month -- potentially one month or maybe two months behind us, so -- however, it is not our intention, necessarily, to lag so that those two applications ran together. I do also want to make that very clear. I would like to talk just briefly -- or a little bit later here about a few time critical issues, which we would certainly like to walk out of here with an acceptance from the Commission. Borup: And I don't think staff had any conditions, so -- I guess what I'm saying if time is an issue, we are probably ready to move along. Are we, Commissioners? Rennison: I can quit talking anytime here. I think we are done. Zaremba: I think we are done. Borup: And you will have an opportunity to come up and address any -- if there anything else comes up with any public testimony, you, of course, have the opportunity at the end also. Rennison: Thank you very much. Borup: All right. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? Come on forward. Wali: Mr. Commissioner -- or Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I am Dave Wali, my residence is 939 Northwest 13th Avenue, which is in the Navaro Subdivision right across the street from this proposed plan. Our subdivision is approximately this area here. Right now we have some grave concerns, because with the Treymore 72 unit that just came in, they have a driveway here, we have a driveway here, or a street, street, and a street, coming onto a very busy street. You have got traffic turning from every which direction. You have nine months out of the year that the high school kids are going to school driving back and forth at certain times and we think it's going to be a matter of time before we have a critical wreck and with that many units, you're talking probably 125 to 150 trips a day out of those apartments. The other issue is is, yes, you do have Sunbridge there, that is a facility care that takes care of senior citizens, even some real critical senior citizens. You also have Treymore, which is a senior citizens housing type situation and now you're going to put this type of housing in back of that and those two don't mix -- or three don't mix, in our opinion. The other issue of concern Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 20 of 64 we have as homeowners is the fencing issue of the canal and the railroad tracks. We are very concerned about children and people. We know how well fences are maintained sometimes, whether it's a chain link or wood fence or whatever, that they are torn down and a child does get loose or gets out there and gets run over by a train or in canal. So, we do have some concerns about this subdivision. We don't think it fits that type of area and with those type of residents. Borup: Are there any fencing -- is there fencing up there now along the railroad tracks? Wali: No, sir. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Anyone else? Wilson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Mark Wilson, I'm also in the Navaro Place Homeowners Association and live in that subdivision. You did express some of my concerns, you took care of some of them, and that was the access to it. My biggest concern with that access is if he's going through this next subdivision -- let's see. Right here I guess it is. Are they going to have an access over to this subdivision on out or is this just going to be like a U shape and, then, there is going to be no access whatsoever to this piece here. Borup: That's probably -- that's really something we can't address, because we haven't seen -- Wilson: Right. But the agreement is to share access with this -- Borup: And that would be your emergency access is what they are concerned about. Wilson: Right. Right. And so I was just concerned also, like Dave Wali said, that there is a lot of traffic coming in and out of here and I don't know if you have ever been on the corner of Pine and Linder between 7:00 and 8:00 o'clock in the morning, it is backed up. We get kids that come -- and it starts backing up here. They come flying through this subdivision, they come flying up 11th Street and back through here, and it just backs up all through this area at that time in the morning. Now, the senior center that was put in here, we felt that it wasn't that critical, because they come and go at different hours than when the students do, but when you start putting residential -- you know, just standard -- I don't know how you determine, just normal everyday people like me that go to work all the time, I'm coming and going at the same time that the high school students are coming and going and it is quite a hazard at that point. I don't know what the remedy is, I don't know if there should be a traffic light at that intersection there at the high school to facilitate the cars going through there better or what, I don't know. It's not -- and it's something that's going to have to be addressed sooner or later, I think, because Pine Street is becoming pretty much a secondary artery east and west through this down and if they ever hook up up to Eagle Road and, then, on over to Cloverdale, it's really going to get busy through there. So, I mean it's not something that's going happen now, but eventually it will happen. And that's my concern is the traffic patterns. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 21 of 64 Borup: Well -- and now is the time to start making that known to the highway district. Sometimes it takes them awhile to move on things, but a signal light is something they can move a little faster on than other projects. Wilson: And it might facilitate the movement of traffic at the high school through there, because I know at times people are trying to go to work down Linder to get to Franklin and get over to the freeway, at the same time the students are trying to get to the high school, and it really gets congested. Borup: It sounds like you feel it would be beneficial to have some access to the other property. Wilson: I would think -- you know, if I was living in this area, it would be nice to have access back in through here, not that it -- you know, that that's a main artery to go through there -- Borup: It's just another option. Wilson: Yeah. It would be an option. And that might be something that you might want to consider when they develop these two other pieces of land that access through those. Borup: I think that's something we always look at. Wilson: Well, thank you for your time. Borup: Thank you. Did we have anyone else? Come forward. Come on up. Johnson: Good evening. My name is Maxine Johnson, I am the regional supervisor of the management company for Treymore Senior Community. I believe that Mr. Hood received a fax letter from Tom Mannschreck today. We had a -- we had a fax receipt that showed that it was sent. I have a copy of the letter here and it is addressed to Mr. Craig Hood, Meridian Planning and Zoning Department, 600 East Water Tower Drive, Suite 202, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Regarding the Roundtree Subdivision conditional use. Dear Mr. Hood: Thank you for taking my telephone call Wednesday morning, February 4th, and giving me the overview of the land use action. I understand Roundtree is an 18 lot, four-plex subdivision with one common lot. A total of 72 apartment units may be built. By virtue of the platting process, each of the lots could be individually owned. I am one of the owners of Treymore Apartments, a 72 unit senior community immediately adjacent to the north of this proposed development. He has spoken with the development engineer John Rennison, PE, he was quite helpful and answered many of my questions. The owners of Treymore have the follow concerns. Number one. The Meridian fire department has apparently requested secondary access to Roundtree. Mr. Rennison is working with the landowner to the east. We support the concept of secondary access. But when the property to the east develops, we do not Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 22 of 64 support that property utilizing our driveway on the west side of our property as any means of ingress and egress to their property and that is the current 25 foot driveway that's in place. The other concern we have is the common professional management company -- evidently they haven't thought about that, according to Mr. Rennison. There are several four-plex developments around the valley with the units individually owned. Unless the four-plexes have a common professional management company, homeowners association, and detailed declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions regarding architectural style, maintenance, et cetera, one or more of the buildings may fall under a state of disrepair, have junk, laundry, et cetera, on the decks and patios, and otherwise not a good and compatible neighbor. This has occurred at some of the other developments. We request the developer prepare covenants, conditions, and restrictions covering these items and submit to the city for review. Number three. I have not seen the landscape plan, but encourage dense planting with a preponderance of evergreens on this development's north property line to screen it from our Treymore development. And, then, he tells that I am the one that's going to be here tonight in this letter. And I'm open to any questions you may have as far as now we feel about the subdivision going forward. We request deferral of all items before the Commission until our issues are addressed. Sincerely, Thomas Development Company, Thomas C. Mannschreck, President, and he faxed it to 343-0337 was the fax number. One thing I want to make very clear, yes, we are a management company. No, we don't want to manage that particular project. And I have lived across the street from other projects similar to this and there is one here in Meridian -- every building had a different owner, every building had a different rule, some buildings let dogs, some didn't, it was very difficult for the management people to manage, because they only did parts of them and some of them fell into disrepair, some of them didn't, and it was -- it was very hard having them as a neighbor across the street from a very nice place to live. Again, we just want to make it very clear that our concerns about their professional management has nothing to do with us, because we manage our own properties and few of the owners that partnership up and we have no desire to manage this type of project. Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Did we have anyone else? Okay. Mr. Rennison, you might want to address some of those items. Rennison: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, I would like to address a couple of those. First, Tom's letter, he did -- he was kind enough to fax me a copy. I did speak with him yesterday in regards to the letter that Maxine just read for us into the record. I do have a copy of that myself. There were three items that he talked about in there. One was the emergency access or access through the development and the second was a -- was the CC&Rs and the third was -- had to do with landscaping. Well, the first one, the emergency access, in part, I -- as I understand it, it's Tom's concern that he didn't necessarily want to see the property to the east of us take access through that same -- through our piece and through his shared access, which we mutually share and, then, take access to Pine Street for public traffic. I did want to clarify that this -- the driveways in this -- in this development are private, they are not public, and we, actually, don't want to encourage traffic through our development and through that approach either. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 23 of 64 So, we are in support of what he's suggesting there, number one. However, we all need to acknowledge that emergency vehicles definitely need the passageway through both and that's what we intend to provide. Zaremba: Do you know -- I realize this isn't your project, but since you are trying to work with the property owner to the east to provide both of you with a second access, do you know -- could you, with a pointer, indicate to us how his access is going to work or what he's working on? Rennison: Actually, I have no idea, but -- Borup: Can we assume he would have access to Pine, though? Rennison: That's correct. That's about the extent of my knowledge on the project, unfortunately. I have not seen their site plan to date. Zaremba: But not through their property. Rennison: I'm looking forward to it, but -- pardon me? Zaremba: Separate from the Treymore property, though? His access will not go through the Treymore property? Rennison: His primary access will not go through the Treymore -- either lot of the Treymore development. Clarification. Our project is Lot 2 of Treymore Subdivision. Tom's development is Lot 1 of Treymore Subdivision, that big building that you see in the upper portion of the -- on the preliminary plat there, that outline. Moe: And, then, do I, then, understand, then, there will be a secondary route out -- as well out of that same property -- out of this property? Rennison: That's correct. If I can find this pointer, I will point at it. Right there. There is a drive aisle that goes up and out right there. Well, our secondary access is going to be right here. There is going to be connectivity between the two projects right at this point. Maybe we could flip to that master site plan. That show it a little better. The preliminary plat that we were just looking at showed the access easement. This illustration shows the drive aisle and we are going to connect right here. In fact, we are already coordinating with their engineer such that those two access will align. So, the connectivity will be emergency in nature. Did I answer that well enough? Moe: Yes. Rennison: The third item in Tom's letter talked about the landscaping. We will certainly complete the landscape plan in accordance with the ordinance. We don't intend to have -- make any exceptions to that. And, then, the deferral matter, hopefully, we would overlook that. We would certainly hope not to defer our project. If Tom wanted to defer Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 24 of 64 it, he could come down here and we could really hammer things out on the ground. That's the way I like to do it, anyway. I appreciate you coming, Maxine, but I don't see any need for deferral of this application, personally, based on these items. Did I skip over number two? I did. I'm sorry. Number two had to do with CC&Rs. We fully intend to engage a full set of CC&Rs. We had not drafted those to date. We do intend to do so. We have always intended to have a homeowners association, which will be responsible for the maintenance of common spaces, et cetera. Borup: How about maintenance of the buildings themselves? Was that -- Rennison: That is still somewhat open for discussion. We have not resolved that matter. There has been some discussions with my client and I. In fact, we were just speaking of it tonight and that it could be a situation where there is one management group that manages all of the buildings. However, there is a possibility that there could be individual ownership of those -- each particular building. It will be our intention to structure the CC&Rs such that we will protect against the car overhaul in the middle -- in the front of the building and things of that nature. Borup: And exterior maintenance and that type of thing, that will all be addressed in the CC&Rs? Rennison: We would certainly address all those types of items in the CC&Rs. Zaremba: Well, just to suggest, you would have probably both design standards and building maintenance standards; right? In your CC&Rs? Rennison: That are correct to some degree. It's our intention at this time to have one builder build all of these -- all the buildings and he's here with us tonight, Ron Batten of Big View Builders. So, the design guidelines are not -- we are going to have full control of those -- we are going to build the buildings. That's the intention here. Zaremba: All right. Rennison: Just to hit on one last item, Dave Wali's comment on the traffic, as I understood it, I think one of his concerns was that a lot of the property to the east might come through -- a lot of the public traffic might come through our project and come out onto Pine Street -- our Pine Street access. And, again, that's not what we are wanting to encourage either. So, I think we are -- our thoughts in line there. Moe: I guess I want to follow up on the Dave's comment. In regards to the design standards, if, in fact, you're going to have multiple owners of these properties, if you don't have some type of design criteria set, then, you're going to have one or two buildings decide they want to make, you know, wholesale changes to exteriors and whatnot of these facilities -- of the buildings, so I'm just kind of curious of maybe you guys even thought about that as far as setting any criteria that will have to stay, you know, with the development? I mean I saw your rendering and whatnot for your siding Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 25 of 64 and whatnot. If you get an owner that decides he wants to put effus up, now you have completely changed the outlook of the whole facility. Rennison: That's a very good perspective and that's something we will -- I think we can definitely consider. Unfortunately, I am not the expert on the drafting of those CC&Rs, that's just my arena, but we fully intend to engage somebody that is more versed in preparation of those things and having a little more foresight into items specific to that in nature, so -- Moe: Thank you. Rennison: I think we can adequately address those -- those types of concerns. I guess that's all I have, unless there might be any questions. Rohm: I believe there was a request for fencing along the adjacent canal. Is there -- Borup: Well, there is both the canal and the railroad tracks. And you had perimeter fencing already planned for the project; isn't that correct? Rennison: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Anything else? Rennison: Thanks for your time. Borup: Thanks, Mr. Rennison. Okay. Commissioners? Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on Item 6 and 7 be closed. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? Do we need any discussion on either item? Zaremba: I think I have gotten answers that satisfy me on almost everything. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: In that case, let me make a stab at it. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 6 on our agenda, PP 03-045, request for preliminary plat approval of 18 building lots and three other lots on 5.7 acres in an L-O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering, south of West Pine, not north of West Pine -- south of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the city clerk February 2, 2004, with no changes. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 26 of 64 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 7 on our agenda, CUP 03-069, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for 18 residential four-plex buildings on one lot in an L-O zone for proposed Roundtree Subdivision by Rennison Engineering, again, south of West Pine Avenue and east of North Linder Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the city clerk February 2, 2004, with the following changes: On page 14, under site specific conditions, paragraph two has two subparagraphs and I would add a third subparagraph to paragraph two, the subparagraph three reads: No fencing shall be built closer to any building than five feet per story. Also on page 14 under site specific conditions, paragraph five will be changed to read: Provide each dwelling unit with at least 100 square feet of usable private open space, comma, with 48 square feet minimum in patio, and the balance in landscaping. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8: Public Hearing: AZ 03-037 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 46.40 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 215 residential building lots and 34 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: CUP 03-070 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with request for reduction to the minimum requirements for lot size, street frontage and front yard setbacks for patio homes for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC – east of North Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: Borup: Okay. Thank you. Our next item is Chesterfield Subdivision and I just realized maybe we should have said something earlier. Do we have anybody from the public Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 27 of 64 here for Chesterfield? Okay. We do have a letter from the applicant requesting to have this continued and they are working on some layout redesigns, looks like required by -- to accommodate fire department requirements. So, if we are going to continue this, we need to go ahead and open it and, then, we can continue it to -- their suggestion is the 19th. It looks like we would be okay on that meeting. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I certainly would support that activity. I, actually, did not find in my notes the staff report for this project. Borup: Right. And I assume that was why, because of the requested -- Zaremba: That's because there were changes being made by the applicant, so I think continuation is the logical outcome. Borup: Let me ask first does the 19th give staff enough time for their report that's anticipated? Zaremba: They would have to have everything in their hands by next Monday for that to work. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, we received revised plans today or a revised layout today, so we feel okay with that. Borup: All right. Very good. Thank you. So, that would being said, like to open Public Hearing AZ 03-037 and Public Hearing PP 03-046 and Public Hearing CUP 03-070. At this time all three of these public hearings are open. I'm open for a motion. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we continue all three of these items, AZ 03-037, PP 03-046, and CUP 03-070, to our meeting of February 19th. Rohm: I'll second that. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: RZ 03-013 Request for a Rezone of 5.51 acres from R- 4 to C-N zones for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell – north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 28 of 64 Item 12: Public Hearing: PP 03-044 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 5.51 acres in a proposed C- N zone for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell – north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 03-067 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for four office buildings, a car wash, two fuel pumps and a drive through coffee stand in a Neighborhood Center designation for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell – north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: Next item is Cedar Springs Professional Center. Like to -- that's Public Hearing RZ 03-013, request for rezone of 5.51 acres from R-4 to C-N zones for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell, and Public Hearing PP 03-044, request for preliminary plat approval of five commercial building lots and one common lot and CUP 03-067, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for four office buildings, car wash, two fuel pumps, and a drive-thru coffee stand, neighborhood center designation for proposed Cedar Springs. Again, we'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. These three applications all deal with the five and a half acres that's located here at the northeast corner of Venable Lane and Ustick Road. Generally located, here is Meridian Road, just about a half mile to the east. This large purple parcel is Meridian's Settler's Park, 58 acres in size. Cedar Springs Subdivision is to the north and this, as you can tell, was originally part of Cedar Springs preliminary plat that was submitted a couple of years ago. They had always kind of designated this area as, really, not to be developed with the northern half. They originally came through and showed some single family detached lots on that. So, at this point they are coming through, obviously, with a modification to what their original preliminary plat had for the entire Cedar Springs Subdivision. Borup: Wasn't the original staff recommendation for that area to be just this, essentially? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I think the original -- yeah, it was certainly to be something other than the single family detached. We had talked about multi-family housing at one point. Borup: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: You know, I think in 2000 it was when this came through. This Commission has also, just in the last month or so, reviewed an application for Salisbury Subdivision No. 2, which is immediately south on Venable Lane, which is private on the south side of Ustick. Of course, they are proposing to dedicate it as a public street on the north side of Ustick. As you can see from the aerial taken a couple years ago, largely to the west remains large Ada county undeveloped parcels, as well as to the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 29 of 64 south. This is a copy of the preliminary plat that was submitted and I won't spend too much time on this, other than it does show the large commercial lot that they are proposing here in the corner with four office lots around the north and east. They are proposing to have each of these lots -- this dashed line, as you can see coming up, would be the private commercial drive and each of these lots would basically own to the center of that commercial drive and it would be common ingress-egress for all of the association. A couple of highlights to hit on the Comprehensive Plan. Our staff report that was dated January 30 submitted to the Commission does a full-blown analysis of the Comprehensive Plan. This is the first application that the city has received since the 2002 Comprehensive Plan was adopted for a neighborhood center area. We have seen portions of a neighborhood center approved on Locust Grove as a part of the Heritage Commons Subdivision, but that was submitted before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, so I just wanted to read one sentence that's from the Comp Plan just to kind of give you a sense of what these neighborhood centers are intended to be, since this is the first application and you will probably be seeing more of these as the months and years go by. But on page two of the staff report, in the middle of the document, it says the purpose of the policy is to -- oh, I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong page. The -- page three. The purpose of the neighborhood centers is to provide a blend of high density residential, small scale commercial, entertainment, office, and open space uses that are geared to serve all residents within a one to two square mile area. The center should offer an internal circulation system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods or regional pathways. They may also serve as public transit locations for future park and ride lots, bus stops, et cetera. So, this certainly is not the full -- what would be envisioned as the full neighborhood center, but is a critical piece of it, since Venable Lane is at the half mile and that would be anticipated to be the main entrance into one of these centers. Here is the Conditional Use Permit site plan that was submitted for -- this is on Item No. 13 now. The project proposes the -- again, this looped commercial drive. They are proposing a car wash in the center, their coffee kiosk stand here in the southeast corner and the fuel pumps here at the northeast corner of the commercial lot. So, three different, really, uses there. They do have some vacuums here on the other side -- on the west side. And, then, on the other lots, again, are just the office building lots that they are proposing. They do have elevations. I guess before I show those, I just wanted to point out as one of the conditions refers to, we have adjacent to this site the Meridian Settler's Park, which you can see doesn't, actually, touch the property, there is -- the proposed school is in between the park site and Cedar Springs Professional Center. But to give you a sense on this west boundary of the park, the parks and recreation department is anticipating beginning construction this summer on this plan here, which shows the ball diamonds, two different sizes of ball diamonds. Again, Ustick Road is on the south. So, there is a small 1.4 acre out parcel here on the corner of the park and, then, the larger -- the application we have tonight is beyond that. The parks department is supportive of having pedestrians be able to access in between one of these ball fields to get into this central area, so they have the choice of either going out to Ustick Road and entering from Ustick or accessing up through into the middle of the park. So, I just want to give the Commission a sense for what they are -- what the parks department is planning. And, then, this is somewhat of a skewed drawing of what the school district is proposing. Again, the office lots are adjacent here Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 30 of 64 on the south and the school district is having some parking here immediately north and, then, this would right now just be open space that is really not for playground area, it's not designated. Their playground area for the school is on the north side. So, this would be basically just kind of a undeveloped open piece that they may grass. They are not entirely sure what they would do with it is my understanding from Wendell Bigham. One of the conditions that we referenced was a path that would connect into this corner and we would anticipate that it would cross, you know, somewhere in here to connect to the ball diamonds, which are located on the east side of the boundary here. Zaremba: Sorry to interrupt, but two questions. Tell me again the level of the school. This is an elementary? Hawkins-Clark: Elementary. Zaremba: Okay. And the parcel in question of the application tonight has, actually, no adjacency to the park, there is something between them whatever direction they go. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: So, any pathway that would connect to the park would be at this moment a stub pathway as far as this application is concerned? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: And you have a preference for where that would be? Hawkins-Clark: We have -- staff has had conversations with both the parks department and the school district -- Zaremba: I think you're saying it would go -- actually go north out of this property. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Into the school property and, then, across from there. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Mathes: Is Venable Lane going clear up to Cedar Springs? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Yeah. I can just go back and show you the vicinity map. Comes from Ustick, runs north to this second east-west street and, then, they are, actually, vacating a portion of Venable Lane up to the north at this point, so it would go passed the school and, then, basically a block or block and a half north and, then, dead end there. Here are the elevations that they submitted with their applications for the car wash. They did also submit a materials list that outlines the materials for the car wash and the office buildings that they are proposing. I guess I'm not going to be able to put Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 31 of 64 my hands on it right now, but they have gabled roofs and sort of a rock finish on the pillars that come down. They have some bays in their car wash, obviously, and, then, here are the office buildings, which have somewhat of a similar roof line, complimenting the gabled roofs and so that is part of our planned development, so we'd like to see some coordination happen between the materials and the architecture. So, we do think they have done a good job at coordinating those. We did not receive -- Daren Fluke is representing them tonight, reminded me that we didn't review the canopy for the fuel pumps and they are working on those. They said that they will be very similar in terms of colors and materials to the rest of the project. Let's see. Just a couple of unresolved issues. Starting on page 12 of the staff report, we did receive a written response -- did the Commission receive that from the applicant as well? Okay. That's right. Daren's got that. So, he has outlined a couple of the issues. I think most of them have -- they are in agreement with in terms of the staff report. Probably the main two or three to point out, we had asked for -- on item number three on page 12 that the -- they consider providing cross-access, generally, at this location in the project, so that when this little out parcel that we had discussed, assuming that redevelops, there is the ability to cross. They have agreed to provide the easement. They are asking that they don't actually construct it right now, which staff is okay with that. As you can see, they are not proposing any curb or landscaping around the perimeter of Lot 17, which is the commercial lot . They are proposing just to leave these broad wide openings mainly for traffic and truck -- truck movement. We -- staff is recommending that they construct a minimum five foot wide planter that would have landscaping and curbing to help to define traffic movement in this area a little better. One of the main reasons we feel -- as you come into the project, if you're traveling north and you have cars exiting out, there is really no defined area in here to help guide the traffic, if you're coming to the coffee kiosk, which direction that traffic moves. The other main reason we think is as part of the neighborhood center this is very pavement intensive and not really meeting the intent of what these neighborhood centers were supposed to be, for a little bit more landscaping, some places for pedestrians to feel safe, et cetera. So, we think it's important to sort of define some of those curbs and those driveway entrances a little better. Similar to that condition is on the Conditional Use Permit they have shown on their site plan striped areas at the corner of these buildings. I think there is one here. They don't show up too well on this plan, but this is just striping here, striping here, striping here, and some striping here without having planters. The ordinance does require that at the ends of parking rows that you actually construct planters with one tree. So, rather than the striping, we have asked them to comply with the ordinance and actually place planters with the curbing and a tree in those locations. I think those are the main issues of disagreement at this point. They have agreed to the seven foot sidewalk, which we had recommended in our report here on the west side of the project, provide a little bit wider area for kids to walk up to the elementary school. There was also mention of a bike lane on Venable, which I did talk with the highway district staff Andrea Tunning about that as an option in the design of Venable Lane. She said at this point, since Venable has already been submitted and is under construction as a part of Cedar Springs Subdivision Phase 3, it's not designed to the width that could accommodate a six foot bike lane. Typically, if there is already a project that has in its entitlements and it's underway, it's under construction, to go back and require them to change that clearly Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 32 of 64 would not be something -- a habit that we want to get into, but I'll just ask the applicant to address if they think there is anyway to work that out. If not, then, that's -- if the Commission could give that some thought. Borup: Would the seven foot sidewalk address that partially? Hawkins-Clark: Partially. Borup: I would think grade school children makes more sense probably be riding their bikes on a walk, rather than out in a paved normal bike lane along the road. Hawkins-Clark: Right. The main reason we had put that into the report was this does -- is designated in the Comprehensive Plan at these half miles is having bike lanes and, you know, if you have two kids walking side by side and another coming on a bicycle, you know, probably ten feet is more appropriate to help accommodate that. Seven feet would still be pretty tight. So, that may be another -- you know, another option and maybe instead of concrete we have done asphalt if you go to that ten foot width, could be more like a pathway, instead of a sidewalk. I did not raise that with the applicant. Borup: See if they can address that. Hawkins-Clark: And, then, finally, on the last page of the staff report we did talk about hours of operation and ask them to address that. The written response from Daren Fluke does state that they, at this point, are intending to have a card type fuel pump that would be 24 hours and open that full time, so that would need to be discussed during the rest of this Public Hearing as well. I think with that I'll end staff comments. Borup: Okay. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Okay. Mr. Fluke, have you got anything you'd like to add? Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beechwood in Boise, representing the applicant on this. I'd like to thank staff for their cooperation and help in putting this application together. As you can tell by the staff report and our response, which should be making its way down to you now, we are in agreement on far more of the items in here than we are disagreement. So, I think what I'd like to do is maybe just go down through my letter quickly and touch on what we saw as the issues in the staff report and, then, maybe I'll quickly go through the conditions of approval and just show you the ones where we'd like a little consideration. Starting with my letter, as far as providing a vehicular connection to the parcel to the east, we are amenable to that and, in fact, that's why it's designed the way that it is. We left this open here with only a ten foot landscape buffer, so that we could provide a connection there in the future and what we would like to do is go ahead and landscape, but we don't know when that connection may be necessary, so we'd like to make it look nice for now and, then, we will go ahead and record an easement, reserving that access for a cross-access between the two parcels for when this parcel does develop in the future. So, basically, you get what you want, it's just we are doing it Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 33 of 64 in a little bit different form. As far as the pedestrian pathway to the school and the park, the staff has asked for it in this location. We are fine with that and we would be happy to do that, we just think it might work a little bit better over here and so rather than locking us into this location between the two lots, we'd just like the condition to be a little bit more general, so that we could put it where ever it fits in that area and makes sense. One item that we do not agree on and that I'd like to talk a little bit about is this issue of closing off this lot with landscaping and leaving only two 30 foot driveways. Essentially, the way -- the design of this lot kind of drove this whole layout and the reason that we left that open the way that we did was so that had better access for trucks and RV's or larger vehicles that might come in here to use the car wash. The truck -- the main truck that we are concerned about would be the fuel trucks that are 30 or 40 feet in length and they need to get access to the tanks, of course, to fill them with gas and so that's why we wanted to leave it open, so, essentially, they could come in here and park and fill up the tank in this area and, then, exit this way. The same is true for the -- for RV's, the RV bay is down on this end of the building and we just wanted to leave plenty of room for them to maneuver in here. This is the front elevation of the building. We anticipate most of the traffic will be coming in and going through the building in that direction and that way we leave this -- the fuel islands open as well and sort of separated from the rest of the site. What we would like to do, instead of just two 30 foot drives, which we think will constrain the site too much, is just take these planter -- or these little striped areas here and turn those into planters and that will sort of accomplish the same thing, yet still leave us some wider drives for better maneuverability on the site. And I'll point out to you where in the conditions that is, if you're amenable to that. As far as this issue with the bike lane on Venable, we are not really opposed to it, it's new to us with the staff report, but in speaking with the highway district, they are not amenable to that and they have wanted this section of road developed at a 40 foot street section within 54 feet of right of way, which doesn't leave them room for a bike path. We are fine putting a seven foot sidewalk on there and you will see later on we have agreed to do that and so we'd just ask that that condition be modified so that we don't get caught in this vice between the agencies with the city saying do it and the ACHD saying, no, you can't do it. Buffer width. On the north and east of the site we do show a 20 foot buffer all the way around to about that point right there and so this all complies with the ordinance. The school is on the other side of that and they will fence their property with a chain link fence, that's their preference, and so, therefore, we did not show any fencing along this property line. At this point here it drops down to 15 feet behind this building and, then, we go to this ten foot, again, in anticipation that there will be a connection here at some point in the future. Then, we are back down to 20 feet here. So, we pretty much comply with the ordinance, with the exception of this, and so what you're getting out of that is future connectivity. We'd just ask that you use the authority granted you under the PUD ordinance to let us drop that down by ten feet. And we also did not propose any fencing along this line for the same reason, that we want to be able to provide that connectivity and make it seem as a single unit. Fencing, I talked about that. Detached sidewalk on Ustick Road, there was some mention of that in the staff report. It is unclear from our landscape plan, but the sidewalk is located where highway district wants it, 41 feet from the center line of Ustick Road. That will end up being detached. We will submit a modified landscape plan that Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 34 of 64 gives you more detail down here and shows that the sidewalk is detached. There will be some sod in between the edge of pavement and, then, the gravel shoulder that's required by the ordinance. As far as this issue of striping on the end these bays, we anticipated that we would have handicapped parking here on these edges and we wanted to provide a little bit more room for them and that's why we did not do those as planters. If it's a make or break issue, you know, we will certainly put planters in there, but we think it's a better design to stripe those and leave a little bit more room for the handicapped parking places. On this one this is not a problem, we can put a planter in there just fine. And, then, the last issue in the staff report is on the hours of operation. They were not included in our narrative and that was my oversight. It is anticipated that the facility would open 24 hours, although you don't get a lot of use for the car wash in the off hours. These are just credit card only facilities and it would be people, you know, pulling in there occasionally to fill up and on their way. So, that's what's planned and it seems to workout pretty well for these kind of facilities, so that -- those were all the issues that we culled out of the staff report. If you'd like me to, I would go ahead and just touch on the specific conditions of approval that we think ought to be modified and, then, you know, we will -- we can discuss that if you so choose. I'll start on page eleven of the staff report, which is where the preliminary plat conditions start. We are fine with all three of those first conditions, except for condition number three. We just simply ask that A and B be deleted out. That deals with the buffering along this -- that little section there and providing the connectivity. We are okay with everything down to condition number six. We would just ask that condition six be deleted. That is the condition working with ACHD on the bike path. If ACHD is in favor of a bike path and the city staff can do that and we can fit it in the right of way section that's there now, we'd certainly be happy to do that, but as Brad noted, that road is under construction right now as part of Cedar Springs No. 3. It's, actually, being platted all the way down to Ustick. We are okay with seven, eight, nine, ten. Borup: Maybe while you're on that page, has there been any contact with the neighbor to the east? Fluke: Yes. My client is working with that landowner currently. I can't tell you what the status of that is, but they are talking about selling that property to my client. Borup: Okay. So -- I mean any concern about the buffer width is what I was referring to? Fluke: Are we concerned with it? Borup: No. The neighbors. Fluke: Oh, from that landowner. No, I don't believe that he is. I suppose we are not -- we are not necessarily too concerned about getting a letter out of him on that, because it benefits his parcel to have that connectivity as well. So, we are more concerned with not having to put 20 feet and a bunch of planting in there when we are just going to take it out anyway to provide that connectivity. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 35 of 64 Borup: So, that's assuming he's going to develop it. Fluke: We assume that it will develop at some point, yeah. One way or another. Borup: Neighbors don't always have that intention, though. Fluke: No. That's true. It may not happen soon. Borup: Okay. Fluke: We are fine with the conditions up through number 14, asking for a detailed fencing plan. We have discussed why we did not have a fencing plan for this. We don't think it's necessary and our -- and the school district is going to want their own fence regardless of what we put up, so we just ask that that one be deleted. Sixteen and seventeen are fine. On page 14, one through seven are fine. Eight and nine are fine. And starting on -- back on page 18, site specific conditional use conditions, in lieu of the way condition number four is written, we'd just ask that we put in some verbiage there requiring that we provide a cross-access easement there and a note for future connectivity. On number five we'd just ask that that condition be eliminated in favor of a condition requiring that these be platted with -- well, first with vertical curb and, then, with landscaping on the two islands as shown on the plan. Borup: Could you go back to the statement you had said earlier? What did you recommend? Fluke: Number five? Is that where -- Borup: No. Prior to that. Fluke: Oh. On number four. We didn't want to modify the site plan necessarily, other than we will note that that is to be future access. I mean this is what we want to build and so we didn't want to show a driveway between there, for one, because we don't own the property, but we will note that future access has been reserved and we will record an easement as well. Borup: Okay. Brad, staff's statement was that it be modified to accommodate a future. Isn't the way it's drawn now -- wouldn't that qualify? It does accommodate a future. As long as the easement is there. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, yeah, I think that would work. We would certainly want to see -- Borup: The location of the easement? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. The easement itself be submitted to the city to confirm that that's in place as a part of the final plat, probably. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 36 of 64 Borup: But it seems to me it doesn't really require a modification of the plan, then, other than showing the easement; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. When I wrote that I -- it was with the thought that in order to insure that it actually gets built, that the curbing, you know, is left cut there, but if -- you know, I think we can work on that wording, that as long as that easement is there, then, it would need to be used. I think probably more substantitve to that point is just getting back to the buffer and if, indeed, the ordinance today does require, since it's a single family residential use, you know, to have trees all the way up and down there to provide buffer between that single family residence, which isn't that far off the property line, so I think as long as we clarify tonight that that doesn't need to be accomplished, going with what Mr. Fluke has proposed, I think would be adequate. We could just make sure that that easement insures that it's actually used, not just written up. Borup: Right. Well, that's why a statement from the neighbor would have clarified that and maybe made that easier to address some of this, but, apparently, he's not here tonight, so he must be okay with the project. Fluke: I don't believe that he is here tonight. Borup: Okay. Fluke: So, condition number five, again, we would just ask that you do that in favor of us planting these landscape islands as shown on the plan, treat them the way we have these others. Borup: Maybe while we are on that, have you looked at that on how you feel that would help on the traffic flow? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I really didn't. I mean that's how they submitted their application. Borup: I mean just tonight while he was mentioning that, of making those striped areas planters. Hawkins-Clark: I think staff is still strongly recommending that they provide a standard sort of curb cut with a landscaped area and, you know, there are examples all over town where trucks can get in to dispense their fuel through standard commercial curb cuts. They need 150 foot wide opening in order to get in there. Those truck drivers are quite accomplished. So, I guess just -- I haven't -- I don't think staff has heard a good argument not to comply with the ordinance, which does require curb cuts that are no greater than 36 feet in width. I don't think that the planned development -- they are not asking for any exceptions, so that in terms of providing waivers to the ordinance, usually, there is some give and take on these planned with amenities, et cetera. I don't think that that's really the case here on this project. It's just -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 37 of 64 Rohm: The standard curves provide better definition than what they have in the proposal? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Rohm: I would agree with that. Zaremba: Well -- and I tend to agree with staff also. There isn't much definition to what should be the roadway and it invites not just the trucks, but a lot of cut-through traffic just zipping across through the gas pumps to get from corner to corner. Making this into the typical landscape thing almost solves that street, but I'm not as satisfied with this. I still would rather see it run -- I wouldn't have a problem with the 30, 36 foot driveway there and a 30, 36 foot driveway there, but I think for definition of the roadway, if staff is saying that this should be a planter and that this one should be a little bit larger, I, actually, would support that. And because the trucks don't have to actually do a u-turn, they have got pretty flow in and out of there, since they have -- whichever way they go, they don't have to turn around, they don't have to u-turn, I think they can make it through the driveways, so I would support staff on that one. Borup: Daren, do you know what the width would be if those became islands? I mean, you know, the distance from here to here and from here to here? Fluke: I don't. I guess in just listening to the discussion, if your intent that there was not enough there, I think a better solution would be to perhaps extend this out a little bit and extend this out a little bit, leaving us a wider drive here than at 36 foot, again, just for more maneuverability and, then, on this one what we would like is maybe a -- we could go with a 36 foot on this one and as long as we kept a second way in here, I think that would work better than just allowing one driveway per side that was only 30 feet. We just need a little bit more flexibility than that 36 feet, I think, to do that, but that's something I think we need to play with a little bit. Zaremba: I would visualize two driveways -- Rohm: Split it right here. Zaremba: Put something in the middle, have a driveway north and south of what would be a planter here. So, in other words, there is a driveway here and a driveway here, each of which could be 30 to 36 feet and, then, across here. Even if that extended a little bit, I'd kind of like to see a middle planter and, again, two driveways, although it would make sense to align this one. Fluke: Yeah. That's, essentially, what we were offering was to make these planters. Zaremba: But I appreciate plans to make them conform more to the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 38 of 64 Fluke: Right. And we will need to do that. I guess I'd just ask that maybe give us a little consideration and allow us to go up to 42 foot driveways, just so we can, you know, have a little more flexibility. I'm saying we are going to need all of that, but once it's written as a condition that's what we have to live with, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, could I just make one comment on that? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: If -- maybe one thought of staff. One 42 or two 30, but not both 42. Rohm: That's what I was going to suggest is if you want one 42, then, the rest of it be curbed on this -- on this line here, that seems to be acceptable, because you still end up with the definition of your roadway, but if you had two 42, we would be right back to what your original proposal is and you lose the definition. Fluke: So, one 42 and one 30 on this side and one 42 and one 30 on that side? Rohm: I think it's two 30's or one 42. Fluke: Do I hear -- Borup: You know, I think that 30's work here and here. These fuel islands are at this angle. Well, you know, that can accomplish that just be extending -- will that work, Mr. Fluke? I mean that's, essentially, what you have already said, extending both of these planters on down, closing those off. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, I think that if we can -- if we can have two driveways on those -- on both of those, I think we can make it work. Rohm: Well, what might be a better solution is a 42 on this side here, because this is shorter and, then, two 30's on this side, one for your fuel island here and, then, here to ingress into your car wash, which that seems to provide the definition to the roadway on your north-south line and your truck traffic coming in on your north line. Fluke: I guess I messed the issue up with the 42. I think our preference would be to -- that we at least be allowed the two driveways on both sides and, then, it will give us some flexibility in design on that. Rohm: So, you're not interested in a 42 period now? Two 30's on each side? Fluke: Well, I think that's preferable to us, rather than saying that -- arbitrarily deciding right now that we can only have one. I think we could make it work better if we had that flexibility to do two 30's on both sides and -- Rohm: Okay. That seems to work. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 39 of 64 Fluke: And, then, the last -- just the last comment we had was on condition number six there on the same page, 18. Our preference is to keep these islands as stripped islands to provide a little bit more room for handicapped parking. Borup: Did you catch the comment that is in the ordinance, though? Fluke: I did. I was vesting you with the power under the PUD ordinance to modify those. Rohm: And, again, I think that you put a curb with a planter and a tree doesn't prevent your -- Borup: How much extra do you need for the handicapped? Rohm: Yeah. The handicapped. It doesn't prevent your handicapped from getting in and out by putting a tree in the middle of the island. Fluke: No. It's just those islands as drawn don't have curbs around them and so it provides a continuous flat surface there that is just basically in that horizontal dimension and give them more room to maneuver. So, I think the standard width for a handicapped space is 12 feet, 14. Zaremba: Well, that's what I was going to suggest, that you make those spaces 12 feet wide and, then, the remainder of what is currently a stripped area would be a planter with curb. Borup: That's what I was leading to. Fluke: Okay. Zaremba: And the planter is smaller than what you show as striped now, but it makes the parking stall bigger. Fluke: Okay. That's doable for us. Borup: Does that work? Powell: It won't connect to the rest of the sidewalk. If he goes four feet from the existing parking stall on either side, then, you're going to have a square flowing out in the middle of the parking lot. It won't connect to the existing sidewalk. Rohm: The planter. Powell: Correct. Borup: Does the planter need to connect to the sidewalk? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 40 of 64 Zaremba: That wouldn't bother me. Powell: Okay. But just so you know, we are approving like a gap of three feet between -- or four feet between -- Borup: The sidewalk and the planter. Powell: -- the sidewalk and the planter and there is also a minimum dimensional standard for the planters that -- the tree won't be able to survive unless it has a certain amount of room, which is typically 50 square feet. Borup: Fifty? Zaremba: Well, right now we would have the planter -- Borup: And much -- Zaremba: -- 15 by 15. Borup: How much do we need -- 12 feet on the handicapped parking; is that correct? And we have got nine now? Powell: He's shown standard parking spaces all the way along. Actually, there is -- for a handicapped spot you have a slightly narrower space for the vehicle and, then, you have an unloading area that's free and clear. So, I think together they are 12 -- 16 for a van and, then, it depends on if you double them, then, they can share the van space. It really depends on how it's laid out quite a bit. Borup: So, we need at least another three feet if it's nine now. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, I mean just to point out, they do have -- I put the number in the staff report. I can't recall off the top of my head, but they are well overparked on the total project. I think there is just numerous parking stalls that they could -- options that they could use that would -- ADA does require those handicapped spaces to be located as close as possible to a main entrance and I think it would be hard to argument that the corner is the closest possible place to place your handicapped stalls. We would recommend that those areas be planted and -- Rohm: And so we are right back to -- just a regular planter, then, in those locations? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. That's staff's recommendation. Borup: It appears to me you could still do -- reduce that area down, have well over the 50 square feet, and even tie it into the sidewalk. Or maybe just do it on the one side and maybe only lose one parking space along that south side. But that would be up for the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 41 of 64 designer to work out, I assume. It sounds like the direction we are going is probably that the planters be in there, unless -- Rohm: Just stick with staff recommendation on that issue. Next. Fluke: That's all I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. If there was any questions that the Commission had, I would be happy to take those. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Are we clear on which items that there may be modifications? I think we have covered the access, which was the big one. Zaremba: Uh-huh. Borup: Okay. Maybe a question from the staff. I'm going clear back to Item number one and that's on the reduced buffer. Do we have any concern with the neighboring property on that reduced setback? I know we don't have anything in writing, but it appears that that neighbor is also not written in or here tonight to testify. Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, I think as a part of the planned development certainly the Commission has the authority to approve the reduction. If you leave it as it's currently proposed, I don't know that any modifications would really be necessary. It doesn't state when that written statement needs to be submitted. I think, you know, even at the time of, you know, the prior signature on the final plat, that would give them the option to work with the Brennigar -- Borup: That would delete A and B in the staff comments -- the staff report on page 11. Hawkins-Clark: Well, no, I don't think it would. It would just mean changing A -- Borup: Okay. Right. And there is time for that. Hawkins-Clark: To give them time. Right. Borup: How about B? That's the same thing. I'm sorry. Okay. I think we are clear on that. Thank you. Fluke: Thank you. Borup: Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Semanich: Mr. Chair, Board, I'm Joe Semanich and I live at 955 West Ustick Road. I have got a few comments on this project. Just now I heard people discussing how many driveways you need for this project. You only have one roadway coming out to Venable Lane and if you need four driveways on the interior just for the car wash and the gas station and the rest of those businesses, it looks like we are going to have a jam up there getting out onto Venable Lane. I would think one or two accesses would be Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 42 of 64 adequate to operate a car wash and a two pump gas station. So, we could have more landscaping. Now, in general, in the south half of this square mile there are 320 acres. A middle school is using 40 acres of that property. The park is taking 60. The school site is taking about ten. That leaves -- we are taking out 110 acres out of 320, which is only 200 acres if the rest of it develops as residential. Elementary school sites should be surrounded by homes, by children, rather than gas stations, car washes. So, I feel that these -- that a car wash and gas station is not compatible with an elementary school. Children need to walk to school and not be bused. There is so many of these children now in America and the reason is we are doing so much busing for them we are making it so easy for them and it will be nice if more of them had to walk. But in this area very very many are going to have to be bused out from Ustick Road into that school, because there is not going to be enough residential in that square mile to fill that school up. Now, also the developer must have anticipated that is going to be commercial and car wash. Six months ago there was a nice sign that says coming soon car wash. I think we should wait until we get commercial zoning before we put up signs in anticipation of what we are going to build there. And as far as having a fuel station there for 24 hours, they want big wide driveways, are we going to have cattle trucks coming in there to fuel? Are we going to have semis? What's going to take place there? You go to some of these other 24 hour deals and we have got semis pulling in all times of night getting fuel. Most everybody that lives in these subdivisions commutes to Boise or Meridian, other places. There are plenty of gas stations in route. There is car washes in route. I came down Fairview tonight, three car washes and there is only one or two cars in them. I don't know that we need more car washes in that area. And also I see you need an access from the park to this area pathway. I wonder what would be the reason for that pathway from the park to this commercial development. Is there going to be anything there for park people come -- to walk over there? And those are just my concerns, but I would like to see this area remain as residential. We have apartments and here near Albertson's on the north end of town many many apartments. Very few people walk to Albertson's. You might see two or three a day packing a little sack of groceries. Everybody else drives. So, the people that live in that subdivision are not going to -- are not going to walk to these neighborhood little businesses. If it brings any people, it will bring them from outside of the area to those places. And I have one more question. I was wondering if Venable Lane, the part that's being built, is wide enough and what is going to be developed on that west side of Venable Lane. And is Venable Lane going to totally curbed and guttered on both sides or is it just going to be a partial street. Borup: We can get some clarification on that. I believe it was 54 feet. Isn't that what was stated on the lane width? They will be doing curb and gutter on this side, but I don't believe they own the other side, so -- Semanich: So, are we going to have a half a street serving that entire complex, a school and the commercial development? Borup: Maybe we can get some clarification. A half plus 12? Is that what we will have? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 43 of 64 Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Yeah. They, typically, in these situations where there is a public street adjacent to -- where the property owner adjacent only has one side, they would require half of the right of way and, then, paved 12 more feet. So, you would actually have 24 feet of asphalt. But, then, the sidewalk, curb, gutter would be completed at the time that the west side develops. Semanich: But you would only have 24 feet of asphalt on Venable Lane? Hawkins-Clark: Until the west side develops. That correct. Semanich: And how wide is that street going into this commercial development? Can a big rig make that turn? Hawkins-Clark: Well, the turning radiuses would need to, obviously, comply with code and they would to make those, but, usually, a lane is eleven and a half feet wide. Most travel lanes are eleven and a half feet. So, 24 provides just a little more than that. Semanich: Is there any plan for what's going to happen on the west side of Venable Lane, then? Borup: Not that's been submitted to the city. Semanich: Is this property owned by this developer or someone else? Borup: My understanding is it's owned by someone else. Semanich: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Do we have anyone else? Okay. Mr. Fluke. Fluke: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Daren Fluke again, JUB Engineers. Borup: Could you clarify -- was my last statement correct, that the property on the west side of the lane is not under the same ownership? Fluke: That's correct. Borup: Okay. Fluke: And that is, actually, what I want to address. We agree that schools should be in residential neighborhoods and that's exactly why that school site was made available to the Meridian School District, so it could be close to a large number of dwellings. In Cedar Springs we have over 300 dwellings. In Baldwin Park just north and west of there you have got another couple hundred dwellings, and you will see that -- you will see development coming south of Baldwin Park as well. You have also got Sundance there on the northeast corner of Ustick and Meridian and, then, all that residential Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 44 of 64 development on the southeast as well. So, this is a well-located -- a well-located school. As far as putting residential on this five acre site, it's really not going to make a bit of difference for the number of dwellings that could fit in there. I think, you know, you would see maybe -- maybe we could fit 15 houses on that five acre site, maybe, if we were lucky. You know, this is the neighborhood commercial concept that your Comprehensive Plan calls for and this isn't the full thing, but this is the site that we own and this is our component of that. You have got that little parcel next to us, which will likely -- to the east of us there that will likely develop with some type of commercial and, then, you have got the land to the west and the land on the south, all that could be neighborhood commercial uses. So, you will start to see a mix of uses through time and we have got a pretty good start on it now, you have a got a lot of single family dwellings, you have got a park, you're going to have some offices, a small retail component there, and this is exactly what the plan had in mind was this type of development. So, I would say, you know, whether or not we need a car wash there is probably a question for my client and the market to answer, rather than this body, with all due respect, and I think we have put together an attractive site here that works well with this site and we would just ask for your approval. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission for Mr. Fluke? All right. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, do we need to discuss any of the issue at this time? At this point are we -- I don't see that we are even modifying any of the staff report, are we? Zaremba: Well, on page 12, paragraph six -- let me ask first. Are we prepared to close the public Hearing? Borup: I think so. Zaremba: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on these three items, 11, 12, and 13, be close. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Page 12, item six. Borup: Okay. Talks about the bike lane. Zaremba: It isn't really under the control of the applicant at this point, I guess, if ACHD is already in construction, although some of this is on the applicant's property; is that correct? Borup: Well, on the east side it is, yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 45 of 64 Zaremba: Well, I agree with not -- while I agree it would be nice to have the bike lane, but I also agree with not putting the applicant between two agencies that disagree. That doesn't seem fair. Rohm: Yeah. I agree with that a hundred percent. Zaremba: I'm not sure that's an opinion. I could go either way. Borup: Well, ACHD did not even address this in their staff report, did they? Zaremba: I don't remember seeing it. Hawkins-Clark: The bike lane? Borup: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: No. Borup: I didn't see it here either. Zaremba: Well, I do think the seven foot wide sidewalk helps with that. I tend to agree with the chairman that the elementary school children probably shouldn't be out in the street anyhow, even if it is a bike lane. Borup: Yeah. I think seven does. A little wider would help even more. Zaremba: In theory they would all be moving in the same direction, you shouldn't have kids leaving school at the same time kids are coming to school, so even pedestrians and bicycles, though moving at different speeds, would be moving the same direction. I could be comfortable with dropping item six, I guess, is what I'm saying. As long as we are asking for the seven foot sidewalk -- detached sidewalk. Borup: Were there any other items? Zaremba: Let's see. Let's go to page 18, item four under site specific. Do we change that to -- Rohm: Cross-access easement? Zaremba: Yeah. Just a written cross-access agreement with the neighbor. Then I -- Borup: You say you want to change that to a written cross-access agreement or -- see, the staff report is just asking for a future cross-access. Driveway. The applicant is proposing to have an easement and not construct the actual driveway to the property. There would be a little landscaping until it -- Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 46 of 64 Rohm: Well, I think the deal was -- is to have the easement and only have it so that if that property next door doesn't develop, you don't have a roadway that goes nowhere. Borup: Right. Rohm: So, if you have the easement, then, it's there for future development. Borup: And it would be assumed that it will be in use when that property develops. Rohm: Right. Borup: That there would not be an option. Rohm: And that's why to change it to a cross-easement and probably should be noted on the plat as such. Borup: So, that's changing driveway to easement. Okay. Zaremba: Yeah. That's -- but, then, Commissioner Rohm brings up a good question. This is under conditional use. Do we need to go back to the plat and have that as part of the plat also? I'm seeing heads nodding yes. Borup: Yeah. I believe the easement would need to be noted on the plat. Hawkins-Clark: I think staff would recommend -- you could just delete that from the conditional use and add a new item under the plat. It would just be a one liner that would say a cross-access easement shall be provided. Borup: Can we just take that whole paragraph -- Hawkins-Clark: Strike it. Borup: Or just move it to the plat. Hawkins-Clark: Well, I guess there is so many rewrites -- I just don't think you really need to spend your time, frankly, on trying to rewrite that when you could just add a new condition under the plat and -- because we are not -- the way that we drafted this it talks about modifying the site plan and it talks about the parking stalls and it seems like there is agreement that -- the only thing that's being looked for here is the easement, so that's really a plat issue, not a conditional use issue. Borup: So, do we want to designate the location of the easement between buildings A and B. Zaremba: Yeah. Between buildings A and B to the east. I could accept that. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 47 of 64 Rohm: We might want to designate the width of the easement, as opposed to the specific location, because I believe the applicant still wants a little bit of leeway as to where that easement will be until he gets the potential tenant, I guess, or occupant. Borup: So, what does that need to be, at 25 feet, or does it need to be a little more than that? Hawkins-Clark: Twenty-five would be appropriate. Zaremba: Okay. Then, back to page 18, paragraph five, the way it reads now there would only be two 30 foot curb cuts around the entire perimeter of Lot 17. I think we were discussing allowing two along the north perimeter and two along the east perimeter. Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: So, I would make that change. Okay. So, under -- on page 20, the list of recommendations, land use buffer on the east boundary, we have discussed and settled. B, new micropath to the northeast we have discussed and settled. And it's the way staff wanted it, so there is no change there. Wider sidewalk on Venable. Yes. Cross-access to out parcel. Yes. Perimeter fencing, we are satisfied with no plan. Their is no fencing. Do they need to submit a plan that says that? Okay. So, back on page 14, item 14, can be deleted. That a detailed fencing plan. Borup: Should that fencing be included in the letter from the property owner to the east? Shouldn't that be included in the cross-access letter if we are deleting fence there, since that is an ordinance? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, actually, the ordinance doesn't require a fence. Borup: Just a buffer. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Okay. Because it's commercial. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Commercial adjacent to residential requires the 20 -- or office requires a 20 foot buffer, but it doesn't require a fence. Zaremba: Well, usually, the point of having a fencing plan is so that there isn't 20 feet of one kind of fence and, then, 30 feet of something different and -- but if their intent is to let the school district put the chain link fence on that property line, then, maybe never have a fence to the east, depending on how that develops, I agree with the logic that it's likely to be additional commercial. Borup: Makes sense. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 48 of 64 Zaremba: Then we just delete paragraph 14 on page 14. Okay. So, hours of operation. I can be satisfied that it's likely that residential is going to be sufficient distance from this and the middle of the night impact is likely to be slow. Fuel delivery may be early in the morning or late at night, but the guys driving the fuel trucks don't want to be out at 2:00 o'clock -- 2:00 a.m. either. So, do we need to make any specified hours as a condition or can we just leave this all open? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, staff included that in there, because we did feel it was a very important point of discussion for the Commission to decide whether you think it's appropriate, compatible, et cetera. And that's -- we are asking for your direction. Zaremba: I can see having the pumps be 24 hours. And I can also see maybe not having fuel delivery be 24 hours. Borup: Yeah. I agree with that. Zaremba: But I'm wondering how -- well, I'm wondering whether it's not automatically going to happen. The fuel delivery trucks are usually out in the middle of the day. They are very rarely -- I mean unless the fuel delivery truck is working this one location only, he's probably going to make it part of his work day, which is likely to be daylight hours and adding the requirement is -- well, adding a requirement isn't going to hurt anybody, but it's going to turn out that way anyhow. I could go either way. Was the staff's idea to limit the hours the fuel pumps were available and that the car wash is available? Hawkins-Clark: Well, we -- since the application was silent, we mainly wanted to get it onto the record what they were anticipating. So, the applicant did just come to the staff table and say that they are willing to have truck deliveries be restricted to day hours of operation only. Rohm: And I think if it's a keyless dispenser, people are going to use those 24 hours a day. I mean it's pretty hard to limit something that's accessible. So, it would be pretty hard for us to define it that way. Zaremba: I'm sensitive to whether or not cattle trucks would be using this in the middle of the night, but this is not necessarily a roadway or an area through which cattle trucks and sugar beet trucks are driving now and I think even though they may visit other similar places in the middle of the night, they are not likely to be on this road anyhow, so I'm not so sure I would be concerned about -- Rohm: Well -- and, then, by reducing the roadways to the 30 foot, as opposed to the 42, you're going to discourage that type of access anyway, so I think we are getting closer to covering the intent. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 49 of 64 Zaremba: So, not limit the hours of operation, but do limit the hours of fuel delivery to daylight hours. Is that a plat note or -- Borup: Well, I'm assuming this whole -- the idea of this is to be sensitive for residential and there are residences around this area, but not a major subdivision. Rohm: Well, there is buffering just in the commercial development itself, so -- to any residential -- either existing or to be proposed. Borup: So, does it make any difference when delivery trucks come? Zaremba: And the logic and -- both logic and Comprehensive Plan would say that we are going to have a circle of businesses, whether they are commercial or office or otherwise, but this circle is not going to be residential, unless it's high density residential, but even that's not all that likely. Borup: That's why I question whether to even have any restrictions. I think -- I think it will take care of itself and -- Zaremba: I think you're probably right. It would be natural anyhow. Borup: Maybe it would be better to have the fuel delivery at night when there aren't vehicles around in their way. Rohm: I think your point of not limiting is probably the best. It will take care of itself. Zaremba: Okay. Then, that leaves item G on page 20 is -- is a car wash and a fuel pump appropriate in this location at all? My first instinct was that this was going to be offices and stuff around in there, but you have to have these facilities around somewhere. I would assume the applicant has done some business planning to determine whether this is a good location for that or not. Rohm: And I don't think it's particularly -- it's not offensive, it's just another commercial application and if the developer wants to put his money into a car wash, then -- and it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, then, I don't have any objection to it. Zaremba: And, particularly, the elevations that they were showing of the potential design for it being compatible both in design and material to the other buildings around the perimeter. Borup: That's the nicest car wash I have ever seen. Zaremba: We should have more of them like that. Borup: Yeah. And, still, maybe everyone's use is different, but it seems more often you do a car wash on a -- not on your way to and from work, but after you have come home. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 50 of 64 Zaremba: Run out after dinner and -- Borup: And that's going to decrease traffic on other roads closer to city center and Fairview. They would be able to -- Zaremba: Okay. Borup: -- be closer to the neighborhoods. Rohm: The thing that I'd like to point out to the one gentleman that spoke to this application is the Comprehensive Plan actually speaks to trying to develop this entire area as a commercial development in each of the half miles within the area of impact and so this application actually addresses that very well and it may not be something that you personally think will be useful, but, basically, the intent is to minimize traffic to and from other areas and keep everything local and that's something that falls within the Comprehensive Plan itself, so this development directly addresses that issue, just to speak to your concerns. You may not agree, but that's specifically what the Comprehensive Plan is addressing. Borup: Okay. Are we ready? Zaremba: I believe so. Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 11 on our agenda, RZ 03-013, request for a rezone of 5.51 acres from R-4 to C-N zone for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell, north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the clerk February 2, 2004, with no changes under rezone. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 12 on our agenda PP 03-044, request for preliminary plat approval of five commercial building lots and one common lot on 5.51 acres in a proposed C-N zone for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell, north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the clerk February 2, 2004, with the following changes: On page 12 delete paragraph six. On page 14 delete paragraph 14. At the end of this section add an additional paragraph, which would be numbered 18, except for the missing paragraphs, that a 25 foot cross-access easement agreement shall be made with the property owner to the east located somewhere between buildings A and B. End of preliminary plat. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 51 of 64 Borup: Okay. Mathes: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 13 on our agenda, CUP 03-067, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for four office buildings, a car wash, two fuel pumps, and a drive-thru coffee stand in a neighborhood center designation for proposed Cedar Springs Professional Center by Kevin Howell, north of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date February 5, 2004, received by the city clerk February 2, 2004, with the following changes: On page 18 paragraph four could be deleted. Paragraph five, which begins on page 18 and continues on page 19, the change, actually, will occur on what is currently 19, the second sentence of paragraph five is changed to read: A maximum of two curb cuts no more than 30 feet wide each, shall be permitted to access the internal commercial driveway from Lot 17 along its north border and along its east border. And the sentence after that remains. Borup: Do we need to clarify that? You said a maximum no more than two. Zaremba: Two on each one. Borup: Two on each. Right. No. I understand that. Zaremba: For a total of four. Borup: Right. Is that the way you stated it? Zaremba: Yeah. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Actually, let's -- the end of that sentence I said along its north border and along its east border, comma, meaning a total of four driveways, for that clarification. Then, the sentence after that remains. Borup: Number six? Oh, no. Six stays the same. Zaremba: Yeah. No further changes. Rohm: Second that. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 52 of 64 Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 14: Public Hearing: CUP 03-068 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for professional office and retail use in a C-G zone as required by the Final Plat for Mallane Professional Offices by Thomas R. Williams – south of North Hickory Way and north of East Fairview Avenue: Borup: Okay. The last item is Public Hearing CUP 03-068. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: I need to excuse myself from this one, so I just wanted the record to reflect that I'm leaving. Borup: Okay. Powell: Thank you. Borup: Thank you. Public Hearing CUP 03-068, a request for a Conditional Use Permit for professional, office, and retail use in a C-G zone, as required by the final plat for the Mallane Professional Offices by Thomas R. Williams. We'd like to open this hearing at this time and begin with the staff report. Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. This is the Mallane Professional Offices project and you should have a staff report that has got a transmittal date of January 29th, today's hearing date, and stamp received February 2nd. The project is located, as you can see, in the Mallane Commercial Center here at the -- located on Fairview and Hickory. You can see the aerial photo. Currently on this lot Louie's Restaurant already exists and there has been a project approved in this location for a D.L. Evans Bank. The proposed project for the Mallane Professional Offices is intended for Trinity Home Mortgage and would be located north of the D.L. Evans Bank project. The main reason why the project is a conditional use is because it's required as a note on the plat. The reason why it was required as a note on the plat was because of the proximity to existing Dove Meadows Subdivision. The Commission and Council felt at the time the plat was being done and the rezone was done that they wanted to review any use that goes on these lots to consider the potential impacts. Other than that requirement, it would be a permitted use in the existing C-G zone. This is the original site plan that was submitted with the packets. There has also been a revised site plan received, which I will get to in just a moment. I believe the only issues to deal with tonight are the seven special considerations on pages four and five of the staff report. The first one deals with the parking lot and needing to get the drive aisles to be 25 feet Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 53 of 64 and the parking stalls at least 19. As designed on this original plan, they were 20 foot drive aisles -- or 20 foot parking stalls and 24 foot drive aisles, so they could borrow a foot from one and give it to the other and resolve that. For landscaping, the staff report points out that there was a bond originally submitted with the Mallane Commercial Subdivision for the landscape improvements and other subdivision improvements and they have since expired. We will require that that bond is renewed prior to issuing a building permit and that all those subdivision improvements, including the landscaping, including the wall, will need to be in place prior to occupancy of the structure. The last item in the special consideration there dwelt with the need for a planter to breakup this long row of parking. In the revised plan that was submitted they have added the planter in this location right here. However, this revised plan has -- does not have trees in the planters, so we will need to add a condition for the landscape plan that trees be provided in all of the planters per the landscape ordinance. Item number three is the future development area. Going back to the original site plan -- this thing is not working very well. This is all one lot today. However, the -- this proposed building only utilizes a portion of the lot and so we had asked that the undeveloped portion be landscaped with at least grass and noted that the future expansion would require a CUP. Now that the application has submitted a revised plan that shows how the building footprint could be extended and the parking to accommodate that would be provided, staff is in agreement that we could probably approve this project for the entire site and not have to require the expansion area to come back for a separate CU, as long as the Commission is agreeable with the layout. What we would do is require that the expansion area be tied to the same type of elevation and building materials as the first phase of this building and subsequent to design review by P&Z staff to determine that it is in compliance with that. Zaremba: And to stay within the same footprint and that kind of stuff? Siddoway: Yeah. There is a little bit of latitude. The Conditional Use Permit ordinance itself has certain amounts of modifications that can be done at staff level, others that would have to come back to the Commission and, then, if it doesn't fall into one of those two categories, they would just have to come back with a new CU. But the ordinance is is already equipped to handle minor modifications and so rather than to require any use to come back for another CUP, since we do have the building layout, the parking, we an elevation of the proposed building, and we would -- if we can tie it to similar building materials and structural requirements for the expansion -- if it didn't look similar to this, we would just kick them out and require a new CU, but if they did, then, we feel like it could be handled at staff level, if the Commission agrees. Zaremba: So, specifically, on page six, item seven, we could change that to read: Any future expansion may be approved at a staff levels, if it has -- Siddoway: I have -- Zaremba: Oh, you have a statement? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 54 of 64 Siddoway: I have written up proposed modifications to the staff report for all of the things I'm discussing, so -- Zaremba: Oh. Okay. Siddoway: And I've also the applicant review them and he can respond to the proposed changes as well. Zaremba: Okay. Sorry to interrupt. Siddoway: That should help with your note taking. I should have handed those out at the beginning, probably. Item number four deals with the sewer and water mains. Bruce, I don't know if you want to say anything specific about this, but the point being is they have been under construction with the subdivision improvements, but the developer has not yet requested inspection of those, so they have not been finaled, they have not -- and they will need to be before this project receives a building permit. Item five deals with curbs and sidewalk and what we are pointing out on there is that site plan does not show curbing along the south end of the parking or around the south end of the property and out. And the associated condition requires curbing to be installed. The second paragraph of number five requests that the sidewalk that's at the north end of this parking row that, then, dead ends, be continued on and connect to the sidewalk that's running along Hickory Way. The last item on that is a statement that the Commission consider whether or not a sidewalk should be also required along the south side of the property at this time or whether it could wait until future development. That sidewalk is not currently in the report as a condition of approval, it's just raised as a point of consideration for the Commission. With the submittal of the new site plan, which shows a future layout that would be very different than just a straight curb, what the applicant and staff have talked about is providing an extruded curb -- it would be concrete along their property in the location as described, that could be modified into this configuration when it happens. And, then, also allowing the provision that if the -- they are actively working to get a tenant to expand the building already. There is not one currently on board, but they have requested that if they have a tenant secured for the future expansion area, before needing occupancy of this building, that the temporary curbing not be required, because the permanent curbing will be forthcoming in short order. So, staff is in agreement with that. Item number six deals with signage. Borup: Maybe while you're still on that -- Siddoway: Yeah. Borup: The plat shows existing curbing and sidewalk along here; is that correct? Siddoway: Yeah. Right on that corner and right on this corner coming in. Borup: Right. But this area is all part of the application and fully developed, either with parking or drainage area. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 55 of 64 Siddoway: Yes. Although the drainage area will be modified with the future driveway that comes through there. And they are also adding additional parking on the south side that they are not currently constructing. Borup: Okay. But -- and this is paved along here? Siddoway: Yes. Borup: So, then -- but we are not proposing sidewalk along this area? Siddoway: There is not, no. And so I guess that's part of the same question and maybe we can get the applicant to address the issue of sidewalks in that area. Borup: Okay. And that's why I brought that up. I guess you haven't mentioned in my mind any justification to not have that -- Siddoway: Not have sidewalks in here. Borup: Along here. Over here, yes, that makes some sense. Siddoway: Well, this is -- there couldn't be sidewalk through here under the current design, because it's directly accessed by parking. This is just a drive aisle. Borup: Oh. Okay. Siddoway: It's not a street. Borup: I was looking at that incorrectly. Siddoway: Yeah. There is cars pulling directly in this way and there is a drive aisle here and cars pulling directly in this way and this way. Borup: Okay. I see that -- okay. That's -- then, how about from here on up to where the drive aisle start? Maybe that's -- that's probably the only area that would apply. Siddoway: Could be. Borup: Okay. Siddoway: Yeah. Borup: Thank you. Go ahead. Siddoway: Any other questions on that before moving onto signage? The Conditional Use Permit does ask for some basic signage information. I'd point out that there is no Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 56 of 64 freestanding sign proposed with this application. The applicant is proposing a three-by- twelve sign on the building in the front. The applicant has run some calculations and shown them to me just prior to the hearing that shows that they are well in conformance with the allowable 18 percent of the face area of the facade. So, I will let him -- Zaremba: You're saying one side -- one sign on the front, nothing on the street side? Siddoway: I believe that's correct. I'll let the applicant address that with you. Zaremba: Okay. Siddoway: I can show you on the elevations, this being the main entrance, there is an area right here that is intended to hold that sign. That's where it's intended to go, as I understand it. The last item is the trash enclosure and on the original site plan the trash enclosure was here, just a sidewalk in front of it, and parking, no direct access to it for SSC. They have worked with SSC since submittal of this plan and on the revised site plan you will see that they have ramps going to the trash enclosure and they have agreed to stripe the area in front of it, so that it doesn't become a parking stall and remains as access to the trash enclosure. So, I believe that is taken care of. So, you have the proposed changes to the staff report. There are several based on the revised plan that was submitted after the report was done, but, hopefully, writing them up this way will help facilitate a motion and I'll stand for any questions and turn it over to the applicant. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Rohm: Just a comment. You did a good job of writing this down. Very much appreciated. Zaremba: I second that. It's very helpful. Siddoway: Thanks. Borup: Okay. Sir, yes, come on up for the applicant. Williams: Good evening. I'd like to thank staff for doing a good job on this. Helping us out, so -- my name is Tom Williams, I represent the applicant Trinity Mortgage and it's a little unusual how he's asked us to develop the land, but it's been driven by the financial ability to move his office to Meridian where he wishes it to be and his actively seeking tenants to complete the project, you know, and the remaining balance of it. We are working off of the original approved subdivision plan and so what we did is we took the original plan and we have just taken our template and just overlaid it right over what was already previously approved. You were just discussing sidewalks. There is an interior sidewalk in this project and if you can see it here and here and if we were to look at the original approved plan, that sidewalk continues up and across and continues Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 57 of 64 on up and, then, ties into the street sidewalk up against the area here. So, just to answer that. The parking -- Borup: While you're on that, was it -- does the existing sidewalk go to this point, to where the parking aisles start? Williams: On the already approved subdivision plan there was no sidewalks on that side of the street. Borup: Okay. Your site plan shows a sidewalk here. Is that incorrect, then? Williams: There is no sidewalk shown there. Borup: Okay. The plat that was submitted has a note that says there is. That's what I was -- it says existing sidewalk to remain. Williams: In this area right here? Borup: Yes. Williams: I don't believe there is any sidewalk existing there. Borup: Okay. Then, the plan is incorrect; is that what you're saying? Williams: Well, it very well could be. Borup: Okay. Williams: You know, I brought a copy of the original plat that we were working off of and -- now, maybe staff might -- I don't know if he has it with him there -- Borup: Well, it does not show a sidewalk. There is a note that says there is one there, but the drawing just shows a curb. Williams: Yeah. Well, the drawing shows a curb and I just took a look at the original plat and the sidewalk is like right here, so -- Borup: Okay. Williams: Anyway. Borup: Well, the sidewalk is off your property. Go ahead. Williams: Staff also pointed out to us that the -- the landscaping issues are something that the original developer is going to have to maintain for us, too. The plantings along Hickory Way, I understand there is some other issues as well. You know, our applicant Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 58 of 64 is -- our owner is -- you know, he understands and agrees to landscape the interior of the lot, has requested that, you know, at the time of -- we get the occupancy permit for this, if he does not have a tenant to complete the balance of the building that, you know, he would sprinkle that and grass -- put in grass and maintain it as landscaping, so -- Borup: Now, did you understand the staff's comment on the landscaping? Williams: I believe we do. Borup: I mean that the bond has expired. So have you talked with the owner of the property? Is he planning on renewing that bond? Williams: Well, we have talked to our client, who is not the Mallanes -- Borup: Right. Williams: -- that developed it. He is aware of it and he is in contact with the Mallanes, the people that we understand are responsible. Borup: So, your okay with the staff report as written, then? Williams: I believe we are. I mean it's pretty clear that there is some responsibility there that should not be falling on our client's shoulders, so -- Borup: Right. But you also understand that this is the project before us, so this is probably the time to get that corrected. Williams: That's correct. And staff pointed out that that issue would need to be resolved prior to occupancy permit for our client and we understand that. Borup: Okay. Rohm: I'm a little bit uncomfortable with just throwing some grass seed out there and just assuming that it's going to grow and fill in and look like the balance of the landscape within the development. It seems to me that it should be developed to the same standards as the balance of the landscaping, if, in fact, you don't have a tenant for that at the time of permitting. And I could see that just turning right back into a vacant dirt lot when the grass doesn't take hold. Williams: Yeah. I can understand your concerns. The original developers of the subdivision, from what we understand, are required to landscape this strip from the back of sidewalk to a setback line about right there and it starts at the corner and runs all the -- and this is just on this lot. I mean there is more on up the way, but there is this entire strip here that will be -- that I understand the Mallanes are going to landscape, you know, in addition to what grass might be here. You now, they would landscape it, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 59 of 64 put grass in it, automatic sprinkler, whatever the City of Meridian's ordinance would ask them to do. Rohm: Yeah. I just don't want the buffer to be well maintained and, then, the balance of it turn into a dirt lot. That's my only point. Williams: Yeah. Rohm: And if the building goes in, then, it's a moot point, but, otherwise, it needs to be maintained just as the buffer. Williams: Yes. And the owners of the Trinity Mortgage Company, you know, they are a top drawer outfit, they understand this, they don't want a dirt lot in front of their building either. So, we talked about this specifically, so -- Moe: Now, I wanted to make sure you're aware -- we talked about that before you got occupancy that those improvements would be done. Based on the staff report here, basically, that the bond needs to be renewed prior to building permit issuance. So, that's something you're going to probably want to bring up with them, that they are going to have to get that bond renewed prior to you guys getting your permits. Williams: I understood staff to say that the bond would be renewed prior to getting the occupancy permit. Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, the way it is written is that the bond would need to be renewed prior to building permits and all of the improvements would have to be complete and built prior to occupancy. And that's standard for subdivision improvements. Williams: Do you have any comment on that, Dan? Is that -- I guess I would agree with that, too. Borup: Yeah. Otherwise, you know, how long do you go without having the landscaping completed. Williams: But it's not my client's responsibility for that. Borup: Right. But, hopefully, your client has some pull if -- Rohm: I would think so. Borup: -- if Mallanes want to sell this property. And that's one of the -- that is one of the conditions on purchase of this property is seeing that that is complied with. Okay. Anything else that needs to be covered that we had any questions on the staff report? Did you have an opportunity to see the proposed changes? Did you get -- okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 60 of 64 Williams: Yes, we did. Borup: Does that all make sense to you? And anything you question on that? Williams: No. I believe we are in agreement with that. We did talk to staff on the new revised site plan, the parking dimensions have been corrected in one spot for sure. There is a question about another, but they will be the correct dimensions. And the way we understand it, we are going to put a tree in each -- each planter island throughout the parking there. Yeah, we are fully aware and understand the conditions of the need to landscape the balance of that lot prior to conditional use, if, in fact, you know, our owner has not been able to, you know, find an additional tenant. We request the ability to use to use an extruded curb along Evans -- by D.L. Evans Bank and that the sidewalk and the extruded curb would be rebuilt, you know, in the event that he would, you know, find that tenant and so -- and we had some discussion about a sidewalk along that -- the area right in here and, you know, if we put the sidewalk in there, it's just going to get tore right back out, you know, when they continue to build on it and so -- and I believe it's owner's intent to try to have somebody in there within 18 months, so -- the architecture of the building, you know, it's -- we are using some stucco, synthetic stuccos, and -- at the entryway to their office, we are -- you know, we are looking at some -- maybe some stone columns and a steel frame with some color to it, as well as, you know, a skylight element that's going to, you know, extend back into the building. You know, as we turn the corner, it's a little less of a statement, but still it leaves us a place for some additional signage and some well-defined front doors and I would see that theme continuing on in the event that we get to continue to -- you know, to build it, you know, with a new tenant. I'm just going through the list here. The signage -- he has -- the existing sign he has is 36 square feet. Quick math, the elevation we are putting it on is 36 feet this way, 16 feet this way, 18 percent of that is 103 square feet and we are proposing 36 square feet. He's chosen to sign in that location, because that's the front of the building that faces Fairview Avenue. Borup: You're not proposing any monument signs or any -- Williams: No. Borup: Okay. Williams: You know, when you look at the site plan, you can see where you drive in right by Louie's, that's the front door to that property right there and that's why he's -- why we have settled on where we are at with that. And agree to stripe the aisle in front of the dumpster. The dumpster is enclosed by a colored concrete block, a three-sided piece with a steel framed door with some non-transparent bats in it, so -- Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from any of the Commissioners? Williams: Any questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 61 of 64 Borup: All right. Thank you. Williams: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Are we ready to close? Zaremba: Did you ask if there is other public testimony? Borup: Yeah. Well, I think -- anything else that anyone would like to add? Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move the Public Hearing on this item be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Rohm: Motion carried? Borup: Yes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Interesting side note. I think the shape of the -- what, apparently, is going to be a glass skylight is going to fit right in with the glass pyramid across the street, part of the church across the street. Borup: Were you aware of that? Had you seen their building design? Okay. Zaremba: Other than the notes that we already have from Steve, is there any other comment anybody needs to make? Rohm: I don't think so. Zaremba: That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of Item 14 on our agenda, CUP 03-068, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a professional office and retail use in a C-G zone as required by the final plat for Mallane Professional Offices by Thomas R. Williams, south of North Hickory Way and north of East Fairview Avenue and this refers to the site plan dated 1/29/04, received by the city clerk February 4, 2004, and this recommended approval is to include all staff comments of the staff memo for the hearing date of February 5, 2004, received by the city clerk February 2, 2004, with the following modifications. Beginning on page six, paragraph five, the second bullet, that sentence can be deleted and we will replace that sentence with the following words: Add trees in all landscape planters in conformance with the landscape ordinance. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 62 of 64 Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, sorry, maybe we could the attorney, but we may be able to just reference this memo, since it's been entered in the public record, and just reference it, unless you want to do them item by item. Gabbert: I think that would be correct, if you just wanted to say including all staff comments as proposed on this additional sheet. But if you would like to read them all out, that's acceptable also. Zaremba: The additional sheet is not dated -- or at least my copy of it isn't. And I, actually, was going to change a word or two here. Siddoway: Okay. That's fine. Go ahead. Zaremba: I realize it's longer to read them all, but referencing it might be questionable also. Borup: Okay. Go ahead. Zaremba: I will try and read fast. Page six, paragraph five, to the existing third bullet add: The grass will not be required in the future development area if a tenant has been secured prior to occupancy of the currently proposed structure. Page six, paragraph six can -- Borup: Well, can you clarify that again? Zaremba: The intent there -- Borup: The intent would that there would be a tenant for the new proposed addition was my understanding. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Yeah. Siddoway: You could use the wording for number eight down below. It says tenant has been secured for the future development area prior to occupancy. Zaremba: On the subject of the third bullet is the future development. Borup: Right. So, that may be -- rather than secured prior to occupancy of the proposed structure, it would be for the future proposed -- Siddoway: No. It's for the current one. For the phase one. Siddoway: Yeah. But prior to occupancy of the current phase one building. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 63 of 64 Zaremba: If they don't have the second building tenant -- Siddoway: Prior to occupancy. Zaremba: Right. Occupancy of the currently proposed one, they have to grass -- Siddoway: That's exactly right. Zaremba: And I think it reads that way. Siddoway: Yeah. I do, too. Zaremba: So, we are saying the third bullet is landscape the future development area with at least grass or other vegetative ground cover. The grass will not be required in the future development area if a tenant has been secured prior to occupancy of the currently proposed structure. Siddoway: Yes. Zaremba: Does that -- Borup: Well, it does. But the tenant needs to be for the new proposed addition, not a tenant for this building. Zaremba: Okay. I can see adding that. Okay. So -- Borup: Well, I think everyone understands. Zaremba: -- the added sentence -- the added sentence will now read: The grass will not be required in the future development area if a tenant for the future development has been secured prior to occupancy of the currently proposed structure. So, we keep the two different structures straight. Borup: Right. Zaremba: I agree with that. Okay. Moving on. Still on page six. Paragraph six can be deleted. Paragraph seven is deleted and replaced with following: The future expansion is approved with the layout shown on the revised plan dated 1/29/04. Elevations of the future expansion shall be similar to the elevations and materials provided for the first phase of the building, comma, and will be subject to design review by P&Z staff. Period. Any major change shall require a separate CUP process. Paragraph eight. The second sentence is changed to read: A temporary extruded curb will be allowed in these areas. If a tenant has been secured for the future development area prior to occupancy of the currently proposed structure, the temporary curb will not be required. On page seven, we will add a paragraph 16: Incorporate the two special recommendations in the ACHD Meridian Planning & Zoning February 5, 2004 Page 64 of 64 staff report, page five, as conditions of approval on this application. End of change. End of motion. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Commission Moe, the last motion of the night is always reserved for the new Commissioner. Moe: Such a deal. I propose we adjourn. Zaremba: I'll second that. Borup: Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Meeting adjourned at 10:29. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:29 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED ______________________________ _____|_____|_____ KEITH BORUP - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, CITY CLERK