Loading...
March 4, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeddian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page30 of 76 Borup: The 15th. April 15th. Rohm: April 15th. Zaremba: Fine day. Rohm: And -- can we do all three of them at the same time? Zaremba: All three hearings are open. Rohm: All three hearings be continued to the April 15th Planning -- regular scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting. End of motion. Zaremba: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Public Hearing: AZ 04-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 24.45 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 3615 South Locust Grove Road: Item 8: Public Hearing: PP 04-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 98 single-family residential building lots and 7 common lots on 24.45 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - 3615 South Locust Grove Road: Borup: I think we are ready to move on to our next item. The next item is Public Hearing AZ 04-002. I'd like to open this hearing at this time and also Public Hearing PP 03-001. And that is ft. I'd like to open both these hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission. Brad Hawkins-Clark with the planning department. These two applications -- the first one, annexation and zoning and the second one preliminary plat for 98 building lots. I'll just quickly touch on this first item. The general location is on the west side of South Locust Grove Road. Victory Road is about a quarter mile to the north. Tuscany Lakes Subdivision is here to the east. Phase one is -- the final plat is shown here. They have come in with a couple of other phases in addition to this one, since this map was done. It's zoned R-4. Tuscany Village is not shown on this map. I think we did include --just go down to the -- yeah. Here is a plat of Tuscany Village, which is immediately to the north. So, the subject property we are talking about tonight is this parcel to the south. This does not reflect the exact final plat approval for Tuscany Village. This short stub, as I will touch on in just a minute, is not -- was not final platted. But, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 31 of 76 generally, as you can see, they have a basic R-4 layout in Tuscany Village. So, let me go back and -- Sageland is another subdivision that was also recently approved, not shown on the vicinity map, that's here at the northeast comer of Locust Grove and Victory. So, this is the second annexation request in this square mile that the city has received. The land is designated as medium density residential on the Comprehensive Plan. The parcel that is shown here touching the northwest corner of this 25 acres is shown in our Comprehensive Plan as a future neighborhood center, mixed use neighborhood center area, and that is why one of the recommended staff conditions is that they provide a stub street that provides better connectivity to get to this area, which we do envision to be about eight dwelling units per acre for any residential in this area. As you can see by the aerial, existing agricultural uses. There is a one-acre -- existing one acre parcel, also in Ada County, zoned RUT, that's part of this annexation and preliminary plat application. Staff has recommended approval of both the annexation and the preliminary plat tonight. We had several recommended conditions and we did receive a revised plat after the applicant received our comments and they adjusted four or five items that we asked for. So, I believe there is really only one outstanding issue tonight for the Commission is at least as far as staff and the applicant are concerned. What I have shown here on the screen is the revised plat that we received. This is the plat that was submitted with the application and that you probably received as a part of your packets. The entrance is largely the same. There is really just two or three main differences. As you can see, they originally did not show a stub street up here to the northwest. Now, they have. So, they have revised this part of the plat to get the same number of lots, just that instead of a comer lot with a common driveway configuration, they just ran this north-south street straight up and fronted lots on there. The open space is the same configuration. The rest of the street layouts are the same. They have added these islands in the east-west streets. That was a condition of the Ada County Highway District as traffic calming for this long straightaway. We also included that in our staff report and so they have made that adjustment. There was some concern that we also had about the entry off of South Locust Grove Road and the width of these common landscape lots being only ten feet resulting in only a 15 foot house setback back versus 20 foot, which is what code requires for a street side setback. And they did widen these. They were able to do that also without losing any lots. Essentially, it resulted in some narrowing of the frontages, but they do still meet the minimum 65-foot frontage for the R-8 zone. I'll let the applicant address a couple of the other issues. The main item I wanted to point out in the staff report that is unresolved is on page five and this is a part of the annexation and zoning required findings. It's Finding G, which is the finding that says that the city has to determine that there are adequate public facilities and that the site is designed to accommodate those public facilities. The issue mainly is on the common driveway that is shown here in Block 3 and. this, actually, I think, may have been resolved, but I wanted to raise it to the Commission. The common drive is approximately 170 feet long. As you can see, each of these is a flag lot that comes down, has ten feet of frontage on -let's see, what is the name of that street? Chatsworth Street, which is the southerly east-west, and the ordinance does require that you can have no more than four dwelling units on one common driveway, which is what they are showing, but we would like to raise this to the Commission to -- I guess mainly for future issues where we have this. Other cities in Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 32 of 76 the valley have, as I understand it, required that you can't front a lot on a common driveway unless you actually take access onto that common driveway. So, in this circumstance these two lots that are on the south of this common driveway, you know, do have frontage onto these -what could be a common drive,'but they -- that would result in six lots. They are proposing to take access onto Chatsworth for these two on the side. I think mainly it comes down to a question of how we interpret this ordinance, which was adopted about two and a half years ago. It's really unclear -- it's a little bit vague as to whether or not this was intended to be. Obviously, if you said that you could not take access on here, it would result in shorter common drive lengths, what the result would be. The concern about the length is primarily one of emergency services getting back in there. The width of it is 24 feet, whenever it's over 150 feet long, and it has. to be, you know, designed to Ada County Highway District sub-grade standards, but, again, it is only one way in and the turn around can get more congested in there, depending on where people park, if there is a party going on, et cetera. What the police chief asked for is an ability for any responses that might -- any emergency responses they might need to make at these four houses to be able to -- for an officer to have quicker response should this be blocked. Of course, the natural question is is it really any different than houses that are fronting on a street, since there is only one way into those as well and I think their concern was just, you know, the length of the common driveway and not being able to actually see those houses, whereas the other houses, you know, they are typically only 20 to 30 feet off of the street. These would be, you know, longer than that. So, the recommendation that we made was for this whole fence in the back to be a maximum of four feet in height. They have agreed to that. We suggested a break in that fence, so that an officer could come down this linear open space and have another way in there. They have agreed to a gate being placed in that fence. I have not gotten a response back from the police chief as to whether or not that suffices his concerns. I did leave a phone message for him, but didn't get a response back before this hearing tonight. So, we'd like -- I guess asking for the Commission's input on both of those issues, whether or not you believe that only four houses, not six, could front onto a common drive and, then, whether or not that gate is adequate for public safety issues. So, that's one of the concerns. The second item I wanted to bring up is item J in required findings, which is on page six, and this relates to the existing residence that is up in the northeast corner of the project. The house -- let's see if I can go to the aerial. You can -- I guess it's not - as you can see, the house does sit more on the front of the lot than on the back. It's -- I think the face is about 22 feet behind the future Locust Grove right of way. The garage is also on the front and what staff is recommending is that they continue the sidewalk and the landscape buffer in front of this house and that they take access intemally to the subdivision off of what could be designed as a common driveway here. There is a couple of main reasons for that, as I outlined on page six. As the traffic volumes increase on Locust Grove Road we do believe that the northern driveway could become an interference, which is what the highway district has allowed them to have one of their two driveways that they currently have. There is one driveway north of the house and one driveway south of the house and the highway district required the southerly one to be closed off and the northerly one open. If they were to take access internally, obviously, they wouldn't need either one and I think the long term cumulative result of these older residences is Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 33 of 76 something that the City of Meridian is just starting to kind of see more and more of as the old farm houses, homesteads, et cetera, are selling off the larger acreages, how do you deal with access on those, what is the long-term use. Many of them could go to rentals with, you know, much higher volumes, noise -- Sanitary Service Company has also expressed some concerns about accessing those houses for trash pick up and needing to backup onto the arterial street and if you don't deal with it now, it is much much more difficult to deal with it later. So, we have -- we have recommended that that adjustment be made and we think from a standpoint of pedestrians, it makes for -- in the future, it makes for a cleaner, less hazardous walkway if that can be continued straight without having to cross another driveway. So, I think, really, those are the main two points of discussion. The site-specific conditions that start on page nine, I think they have complied with now with their revised plat, with the exception of item number two and item number three on page nine. I would also point out that I guess that the lot numbers have changed with the revised plat, so rather than going through each and every condition and changing all those numbers, I think if you just wanted to refer -- if you choose to recommend approval tonight, just refer to the revised plat and staff can go through and make the lot number changes accordingly, because they are different, so -- and if you do agree with the plat, the date is revised March 2, '04, just so we have that in the record which -- that we are dealing with the right plat and moving that onto the Ciry Council. Zaremba: Brad, the one I'm looking at actually says -- well, it's received by the city clerk March 4, '04. Are we talking about the same one? Hawkins-Clark: Yeah. We usually refer to the revised -- the revision block on a plat. Zaremba: I got it. Thank you. Borup: Questions from the Commission? Moe: Yes. In regards to the common driveway, is the fire department okay with this configuration now? Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, Commissioner Moe, they are. They have reviewed it. The turn around would have to be designed to a standard hammerhead type design that they approve. Moe: Okay. Borup: You had mentioned maybe some -- that the ordinance on that may be a little ambiguous on the number of lots fronting. Now, you used the word fronting. Does the ordinance say fronting or adjoining? Was the word adjoining used or -- Hawkins-Clark: I will just have to look that up, just the quote in here. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning March 4, 2004 Paga 34 of 76 Borup: Okay. I mean I think I had the same assumption you did -- or maybe not, but maybe the ordinance didn't intend that, but my assumption was it intended that -- not that it would be a group of lots behind an existing lot. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Commissioner, the wording is common drives shall serve a maximum of four dwelling units -- shall serve a maximum of four dwelling units. Any private driveway or roadway serving more than four can only be approved as a private street. That does not apply to this. Borup: And no maximum length either. Hawkins-Clark: It does address length. The code says common drives serving three or four dwelling units shall be a minimum of 24 feet in width. If they are less than 150 feet it gives design standards. If they are greater than 150 feet, then, a common driveway shall be built to ACHD standards. Borup: So, how is that distance determined? We're over a 170-feet here Hawkins-Clark: Corcect. And the ordinance doesn't say that the length is prohibited, it just says if you go over 150 it needs to be designed -- Borup: To ACRD standards. Hawkins-Clark: Right. Borup: Which include curb and gutter'? Hawkins-Clark: No. Built to ACHD standards for the materials and loading. So, it's really just talking about the sub grade. Borup: Okay. That was it. All right. Zaremba: On that same subject, though, at the street Chatsworth, that common driveway -- or at least the four flags add up to 40 feet. Then as you get back to going between Lot 16 and 19, it drops to only 20 feet, it still needs to be a 24-foot roadway at that point, doesn't it? And, actually, that's two questions. The second is don't we need cross-access agreements among those four lots? Because if it's 24 feet wide, it's a little bit on all four people's lots. Hawkins-Clark: I guess on your first question, Commissioner, I think where it becomes 20 feet -- it appears that it really just serves two lots at that point. And on the second, yes, they would need a cross access. Borup: This appears to be something that, maybe, meets the letter of the law, but not the intent. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 35 of 76 Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Borup: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Moe: Yes. On Lot 5, Block 1, I assume right now that's a driveway that takes access off of Locust Grove; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Moe: Okay. And we are, basically, looking to do something off of Eden Hall Avenue into that property, then? Borup: Yeah. There is a corner between there and Roseleaf. Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. Yeah. And Roseleaf is the east-west and Eden Hall is the north-south, so it would be in that knuckle there. Moe: Got you. Okay. Borup: Is that currently a U-shaped driveway where they pull in one way and pull out the other? I mean you said there were two entrances -- two access points. Hawkins-Clark: I don't believe it's a -- it's aliteral -- it's a U-shape. I think there is -- actually, you would have to go around the house to get back to it. I don't think the U- shape -- but I don't know that for sure. Borup: Okay. We will maybe get some clarification. Anything else, Commissioners? Mr. Moe, you look like you're kind of -- you're still thinking? Moe: I'm still thinking. I'm still on that lot, actually. Is the owner of that house -- is he part of the development? Because, quite frankly, I mean I would assume, then, the developer is going to take care of this and somehow get access to that house, then? Borup: Well, as they submitted it, the access is from Locust Grove. Moe: Right. Borup: But that lot is part of this application. Moe: Exactly. Borup: So, this is the time for us to address it, so -- let's go ahead and with the application - or would the applicant like to make their presentation? Well, I'm sorry, was there anything else? Did we finish -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 36 of 76 Nickle: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you. Shawn Nickle, 52 North 2nd Street in Eagle. Here tonight representing Centennial Development. I will be brief, because I know we want to get moving forward. Borup: Well, we think we are down to only two issues. Nickle: That's correct. We do meet the Comprehensive Plan as far as the density and majority of the subdivision does meet the -- Borup: So, you want to talk about those four lots first? That is ugly. Nickle: The four lots right here -- it was my impression that we were meeting the intent of the code, because these two lots right here are taking access off of Chatsworth. Borup: You say the intent or the letter? Nickle: I think both. I mean if you read back what that states, it states that -- Borup: But do you think the code really intended to put a grouping of lots behind existing lots? Nickle: It's been done and approved by this board before. Most recently last month with Chesterfield where we had four lots accessing off of -- Borup: But one -- Nickle: -- common lots. Borup: But weren't those four lots -- had access -- they weren't behind other lots, were they? Nickle: Yeah. Same concept. I think the issue at hand is whether you consider these two .lots as part of the common driveway and I don't consider that, because these two lots will take access off of Chatsworth. Now, if that means providing a fence along each side to restrict access on those -- on that common driveway, that's something we could do. As far as the length of the road, I think the only concem we would have is if the fire department had an issue with that, because of their equipment getting back there and that was not the concern of theirs, because they were going to have a turnaround. The concern was as far as the public services over at the police department and, as Brad did state, we have agreed to provide some sort of access. Now, whether that's an open fence or a gate, we will work with the police department and whatever they decide we will comply with. We'd like to at least have a gate there to provide for some sort of security for the houses back there. Now, whether that gate's locked, I don't think the police department is going to want that, so it will be an unlocked gate or it might just be an open -- an opening in the fence. We'd like for the police department to make that decision and we will agree with that as a condition of approval. If you do choose tonight Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 37 of 76 not to allow that or you feel the intent of the code is not met and you do consider that six lots, we can redesign this in a way that will still allow us to have this configuration. What we would do is we would have a common drive coming this direction to access these four and, then, we would bring this down right here and you would just have -- you would have the common drive come up here to access the two lots. You would, actually, have four and four. I'm going to leave that up to you if -- I guess it's an unclear -- it's an unclear part of the code that staff is kind of asking you guys to interpret. Borup: I think how it's stated this meets that, but this is not the same as the Chesterfield one, though. Nickle: It's not exactly the same Borup: Because those four -- two of lots had -- maybe it wouldn't be considered frontage, but they bordered on the street; is that con'ect? And none of these do. So, the other one the street went back to the depth of one of the lots. Let me ask you a question. The open area, are you needing --are you needing all of that open area for drainage or was the decision just to have some extra open area? Nickle: I believe it's going to be dual use. Yeah. It will dual use, but it's going to be designed to where it will be -- Borup: And all of it's necessary for the drainage? Nickle: Yeah. But it's going to be a slight indent -- Borup: Right. And that's the normal -- Nickle: Yeah. But it's not going to be -- Borup: What I was leading to is - so, there is not room to run a street back there and do a cul-de-sac or something there. Nickle: Correct. Unless we were to lose common area and drainage. Zaremba: Run that last suggestion by me again. If I'm understanding, if you group these four lots and took access off the road, then, access to these two lots -- okay. If this is no longer there, then, these two lots can share left and you would essentially -- this lot line now would pretty much line up with that lot line and that's where you would run the access? Nickle: Correct. Zaremba: That would work for me. Borup: It still puts the lots behind the other lots. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 38 of 76 Nickle: My engineer is going to address that, because he kind of drew a little drawing back there and I'll let him explain that. If you want I can talk about the existing -- Zaremba: Let's go there. Nickle: Could you put the picture on the overhead, Brad, please? And we don't necessarily have a problem with that accessing that lot off of the interior of the subdivision. The reason we would like it to stay the way it is is because of -- Brad's going to put a picture up here. It's because of the existing driveway and the exiting garage for the house. This would be Locust Grove. And, then, to answer your question, it's -- the Ushape -- here is the -- this is the north driveway, it, actually, goes back around behind the house and, then, it U's back over to Locust Grove. The condition from ACHD was to remove that south entrance. This one actually access those outbuildings right there. So, our problem is -- and that's abetter -- I guess that's a better picture right there - is that there is no way to get to the garage without having the access off Locust Grove, which means that we would have to abandon that garage and build a detached garage behind the house to access off of the internal street system. Now, that can be done, but it's a brick building, there is no other way to modify that structure and get access. We even tried -- the developer, who is not here tonight, Kevin Amar, actually drove back behind there and there is no way to really get a car around to get back into that garage from behind the building, if that makes sense. Moe: Now, the other photo --did you not say that the road wraps around to the back? Borup: Look on your plat. That road that wraps now is on the other lot. Nickle: It goes back to the north -- or to the west to access those outbuildings, which we are going to be removing. Moe: So, you get access and, then, you go around. Okay. Nickle: Without coming -- I guess coming back through around and doing some sort of funky T turn and -yeah, it is still really tight. We are going to extend the sidewalk along this frontage, but that's the main reason why we want to keep the access where it's at. We are going to leave that up to you to make your recommendation. My engineer has reviewed that and we can get a common driveway back there to access that lot internally, if that's the decision of you all tonight. Zaremba: Well, if I may, let me pursue your comment that the resolution would be to build a separate garage behind the building. That wouldn't necessarily mean abandoning this -- I mean you wouldn't have to destroy the current garage you could convert it to a nice bonus room or family room or something. It just wouldn't be a garage. Nickle: Right. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 39 of 76 Zaremba: I mean it's a nice structure Nickle: It's still a nice residence, but that's the reason why we left that on there, we wanted to discuss that with you tonight. Now, if we -- if we do have to abandon that -- and, obviously, we would abandon both driveways on Locust Grove, we would extend the landscape strip along the frontage of that. However, we would reduce that, because you can see it would go -- if it stayed at 30 feet it would go right through the house, so it would reduce that down probably by half. Zaremba: But let me ask staff if there is any problem -- if the resolution were to take access internally and that meant building a separate garage on the property and converting the current garage to some living space, is that all doable? Permitable? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner, I think it would require that --the Commission to grant a little bit of a waiver, because the -- if you do a detached garage in the side yard -- and, typically, I think it needs to be connected to the principal use, right? So, this would require somewhat of a waiver to make it -- to allow it to be detached without being connected with like a breezeway or something. And, heightwise, I mean they are a maximum of 15 feet, so that's -- the code says a maximum of 15, but that usually isn't a problem, unless they want to do an RV garage, which a lot of times those do go taller, but -- so, otherwise, I think it would work. So, it's just a matter of laying out the lot. It's the largest lot in the subdivision. I think it's like 12,500 square feet or something and -- Zaremba: I just wanted to make sure we weren't going to propose a solution that we would, then, say, oh, you can't do that, that's not legal. Nickle: Commissioner, it sounds like staff is saying that we possibly would have to get a variance at some point orwaiver of -- Powell: I think the code -- still what it says is it can be detached,' if it's attached. So, I think if the Planning Commission wanted to recognize and recommend that the applicant be allowed to do a detached garage that wasn't attached in that side yard, that that-would be okay. It's just -- it's very gray code, so I'm not too worried about having to make them go through a variance procedure and, hopefully, it won't be code very long. Nickle: It sounds like the common lot issue. Common driveway issue. Borup: They'd still need to meet the normal setback regulations and everything else. I assume there is living space behind that garage? Part of the house has living space behind it? Nickle: That I don't know. Powell: Chairman Borup, I did ask Mr. Amar if that's the case and he did say there was living space, so they couldn't just move the garage doors around, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 40 of 76 Borup: That's what I was wondering. Anything else? Have we settled anything? Zaremba: We appreciate all the other changes you made. Nickle: We are in agreement with the stub street to the north and, again, the gate and to work with the police department, if you decide to go with this layout. And, again, we will get Dave Bailey up here and you can get -- Rohm: Yeah. I'd like to hear the alternate. Nickle: Other than that, thank you for your time. Again, we meet the code. We do have 12 percent open space within the development and we feel it's a nice addition to this area. It's in compliance with all the codes and the Comp Plan and compatible with what's going on in the area. So, with that I will let you talk to Dave. Thank you. Bailey: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is David Bailey with Bailey Engineering. Office address is 1117 Plaza Drive in Eagle. And representing Centennial Development. I guess I will go ahead and address this first. On the common lots here -- and I'm kind of talking off the cuff here, which, hopefully, is going to get me someplace, but I hadn't seen the comment on the problem with the common driveway until tonight, but I'm looking at it there and saying, hey, how can we resolve this and get you folks where you want to go and get the staff where they want to go and get us in the same condition. And I guess to back that up, maybe if I talk real briefly about why we come up with this configuration to start with. And Kevin Amar and I, in talking about the layout and how we are going to put this thing together, noted that when we had done common driveways in the past, when we configure them -- say the common driveway came in this way for these four lots here, as Shawn was talking about, then, these houses face towards the road and these houses face towards the backs of those houses and we just don't like that configuration in general for the sale of lots, although it certainly meets the letter and the intent of your code to do it that way and that's the way it's often done. But as far as for configuration of those, we thought it was a better configuration to have the houses so they would face each other within this area and we'd share backyards here, share backyards here. Granted, we are sharing a side and a backyard here, but that's not too uncommon in a subdivision, especially if you have got an odd configuration on it. So, that's how we got there in the first place. And we did look through the code and, you know, I do quite a few of these in Boise city as well and I'm not comparing you, except for that -- the only other place that I have done these before is in Boise city. They do restrict their driveway length to 150 feet. But you don't have such a restriction. In fact, you have a provision in your code that says if it's more than 150 feet, then, do this. It certainly indicates to me that more than 150 feet is not a problem, as long as we meet the fire department requirement, which I think we have. And as far as the 24 foot width and being outside of those lot lines there, really, the common driveway is this entire 40 feet of easement for the common driveway, which would continue up to those lots to the north end and there would be an easement for that, which if you're concerned with the cross access, I think these Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 41 of 76 easements which are shown on the plat for the common driveway covers the issue of the cross-access easement on that. So, that's how we got there in the first place and, like Shawn, I believe that this meets the letter and the intent of your code and we certainly reviewed that and looked at that when we put this together as it is. Given that, if we were going to reconfigure this, we could put --and Kevin wouldn't like me for this, because we would have lots that he doesn't like, but we could put a common driveway in here to serve these two. These two lots here would rotate 90 degrees, so they would back up and we would have the two two -- or one, one, one,. one, and a common driveway coming up the center that way. Does that make -- I hope that makes sense. Basically, it looks like this configuration, but rotated 90 degrees down here. And I would have the room -- I would end up losing some room out of the park and I may end up providing kind of a goofy park configuration or some deeper lots between here, so that I could get things to line up with these lot lines on the bottom here. If we lose a little bit out of this park, well, I think it would be a shame, because most of this park portion we put here is so that you get that view when you come in here and we have a nice entrance to the subdivision. I don't need all that area for drainage on this site. I need most of this, because we do have shallow groundwater conditions that we are dealing with out here. But as far as on the entrance here, I could lose some of this park and reconfigure that, if that's your choice, that you need us to do that. I think this works fairly well, if we can meet the fire department and the police department requirements, which I think we have on that and access driveways here, if we need a fence on there, I'm sure we would be fine in putting a fence there. And, then, these houses face each other and we have matching backyards and we end up with a more pleasing configuration for the people that are going to be living there and that's something that we try to look at, obviously, all the time when we are putting these subdivisions together, is what's the configuration not only for everybody around this thing, but for the people that are going to buy these houses and live in these lots. So, we are concerned with that. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Rohm: I guess my biggest concern is this strip here and this strip on this side are --will be the responsibility of the lot owner and I can't even hardly --what are they going to put there, just grass and, then, have to mow that on a -- I could see that turning into a wasted area myself. It looks like they are not going to be as concerned about that as the balance of their yard. Bailey: I don't have any rebuttal to that: I can understand that concern. Rohm: I personally like the alternate much better. Zaremba: Well -- and I'm wondering how you say you would lose parkland. If you don't have the 40-foot wide strip that is the current common driveway, even if you reorient the lots, you have actually gained some parkland. It's not the same shape, now your park is L-shaped instead of square, but it seems to me you have gained at least a 20-foot wide extra strip of park. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 42 of 76 Bailey: And, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I agree with you in that I'm just saying when I start lining up properties on the lot lines they don't always hit here and the lots can get bigger. I'm not saying I will lose parkland or even that that's a concern. We are well over what we need as our minimum area of open space on this. And I don't think that's a big concern on that. I guess now that I'm sitting here talking off the top, I could take these two lots and bring them down, you know, beside here and we would have just a narrower, but larger park area this way and that would also be an alternate configuration that would work and we would have two lots in the back that are sideways like that and, then, these lots would, then, be required to take access off of the common driveway, which solves your question about who maintains that landscaping there, because it's their driveway there, then, and they would maintain up to their driveway edge. Zaremba: And I'd charge more for those lots, because they have got plenty of park frontage. Might bean advantage. Okay. Internal access for the one-acre lot. The Bell property. Bailey: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Zaremba, I don't really have any take on that -- an issue that --the fact of the matter is that if we do take the driveway off of Locust Grove, we met with your staff and with ACHD prior to putting the application together and ACHD said we probably can support that and they came out in their staff report and said they could support that. It's an extra expense to the developer and some little working things around to figure out how to build an extra garage -- a detached garage in the back of that, because the engineering fact is if we put that berm across there and the landscape strip all the way across the frontage of that is we are not going to be able to adequately access that garage with a car. So, we are going to need another garage in order for them to sell that house, in order for that house to sell. Other than that, I can make it work from the inside, so that's a developer cost issue and not -- I guess not really an engineering issue. Did I skirt that one well enough? Borup: As far as the four lots, what would be your preference? Well, I assume your preference would be to leave it like this. Bailey: Mr. Chairman, it would be to do it like this. I it works out really well for what we want to do. Second to that, our preference would be say our code -- for you to say our code says you have to have all the lots access off the common driveway and provide us with a configuration that meets that -- meets the code in accordance with how we described the intent to you, because I can't say standing here until I sit at my computer and play with the lot lines - I can't tell you standing here whether this configuration works or I need to come in this way or -- so I can't tell you which one of those is going to work, but I can feel pretty confident that I can make one of them work. Borup: Well, I -- Commissioner Rohm, your concern was the way it is now there is four properties -- or at least two properties would need to maintain that -- Rohm: Yes, that was my concern, just that - Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 43 of 76 Borup: And which one of the two neighbors would do it? I mean even though, you know, it's going to belong to the one lot, it's part of the one lot. Rohm: Well, true. This flag right here belongs to this lot. But it certainly isn't going to be part of what they would normally maintain. Borup: Right. Rohm: I mean they could have a real nice lawn and leave that unattended. Borup: Because all four neighbors are using that. Rohm: Yeah. Borup: But I don't know if the other solution as far as a long driveway -- I mean the driveway really doesn't -- you still have lots behind other lots and looking at it now, at least to me, I don't think it makes a lot of difference which configuration. Rohm: I guess I would have to see the alternate in print to -- Borup: I don't see how that solution is that much better. Then you have -- then you have two driveways coming in, rather than one. And, then, if they do the access on the other way and, then, you do have lots that are really very hard to -- I mean they don't lay out real well as far as putting houses on it. Mr. Bailey, you had something else? Bailey: I guess, Mr. Chairman, as far as - I guess we've got two issues here that I think -- I think we can come to a resolution on and I think it's just a question of where you want to go as the Commission with how you're going to decide these things in the future, because I think this more affects those, maybe, than it does this particular application. I think this is a satisfactory layout, but if you decide that this doesn't meet it, I think it would be easy for you to say bring it -- you know, we will approve it with the condition that you design your common driveway, so they meet the code on that -- that issue. I think this is a great layout and works really good and I think those -all four of those would be, you know, desirable lots, because they are off the street, because they have a common driveway that forms a little neighborhood. When I think about layouts and I do a lot of PUD stuff as well, when I think about the layouts and those kind of things, I like to create those neighborhoods of little groups of houses where people can, you know, associate with each other, you know. Borup: Has that design been marketable? They do -- or are those going to be the last lots that are going to sell? Or do you know? Bailey: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know, because I design them and I don't sell them, so I can't tell you for sure. But that's what Kevin Amar is thinking that's going to work well. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 44 of 76 Borup: And, ultimately, that's what it comes down to. I mean if the developer is taking the risk, I guess, with something that's not going to sell, then, that's the risk he took. Any other thoughts? Rohm: I guess only that what would it take to make this a roadway that meets all road standards? Could you not widen that? Bonap: It's wide enough right now to be a private road. But you don't have enough for a cul-de-sac or even a hammerhead. Bailey: I guess I hate to get into this, you know, I have got some space here and I add ten feet to that and Iput -- actually, I move it over this way, because I have done this layout before. Borup: Well, ten feet would give you a public road. Bailey: Ten feet gives me 50 foot and I do a public road, a cul-de-sac in there, and, then, I get four lots off of this thing and I eat up a whole chunk of park here and I build a whole bunch of curb, gutter, sidewalk and cul-de-sac turnaround that really isn't necessary to get to the lots, you know, and I just think that's a real waste of everybody's money down the road to go build another 170 foot long road with a cul-de-sac on it and curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides, when all we are trying to do is serve four lots with it. So, it's technically feasible, but it eats into the park and causes a whole lot more expense to construct the development, which goes into lot prices and goes into house prices down the road. Powell: Chairman Borup? Borup: Yes. Powell: Members of the Commission, I think the applicant is correct in that he does meet the letter. Borup: Well, I'd agree with that. Powell: But I do think, as do you, that he doesn't meet the intent, he just - in having authored the -- what now seems inadequate code - at the time it was not the intent. But regardless of that, he's not coming in with a PUD, he's just coming in with a straight sub and it probably does meet those requirements. In the interest of perhaps moving on, I think it's clear, though, that maybe when we do the revisions to the code we will just try and clarify that four lots, because when we did it we were thinking of Berkeley Square and the consensus was that Berkeley Square had too many people on the common drives. But, again, that was our fault for not catching it as it was written, so -- Borup: Thank you. That was -- Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 45 of 76 Powell: That was the Bailey bailout. Rohm: Well -and, ultimately, it's the developer's risk, I guess, of being able to sell those lots as configured if, in fact, it meets code and so maybe we should just let it go and move forward based upon meeting ordinance. Borup: That's what I'm beginning to think. Do we have anyone else here to testify on this? I think our numbers are dwindling, so -- Zaremba: I could see leaving that one configured the way it is. I think I still would like to support staffs request for internal access to the Bell property, even if that means a detached garage, which we will ease the approval of any way we can, including converting the current garage to living space. Borup: Well -- and that makes sense, you know, my concern -- my concern on the way it is now is not so much the access point, but if cars are going to be backing out onto the road, rather than being able to pull out face first. Zaremba: Well, there is trash trucks and -- Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: -- deliveries, anything else. Yeah. Borup: And if you can -- if there is not room there where they turn around and pull out straight, then, that is going to be a hazard. So, is that how we would like to proceed? Rohm: This is the time to address that, so -- Borup: Yes. Zaremba: Well -- and without having the measurement, our plat indicates that across the street just slightly north are two more entrances to something and I'm not sure what the offset would be. If we left the north driveway of this property where it is, what the offset is from those, but I think it would just be better for Locust Grove if this driveway were not there. Rohm: Then, the subdivision would have a continuous greenscape, so -- Borup: Okay. Are we ready to move on? Rohm: I believe so. Zaremba: I'll make the easy one. Mr. Chairman, I move the hearing on AZ 04-002 and PP 04-001 be closed. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 46 of 76 Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the Public Hearing. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Let's see. I would suggest one addition to the staff conditions and that is that if the property to the south of us does not develop for awhile and stays in farmland, that we probably should have a reference to the right-to-farm act on the plat. Is that where it goes? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, it does go on the plat. Zaremba: Okay. And I would make that a condition 12 on page 12. And, then, on the plat that we are referencing, revision date 03/02/04, the lots that we were talking about, the little note that says proposed common driveway for Lots 12 to 15, those numbers didn't get changed with the new revision. It should read proposed common driveway for Lots 16 to 19. Am I correct? Hawkins-Clark: That is correct. Yeah. The four common lots are 16 to 19 now. Same block number. Zaremba: Yeah. That and the Bell properly are the only changes I would suggest. Borup: Okay. Let's go ahead with -are we ready for a motion on the annexation? Zaremba: I'm letting you guys practice tonight. Borup: I don't think we had any changes on the annexation, so - Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we forward on to the City Council our recommendation for approval of AZ 04-002, request for annexation and zoning of 24.45 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, 3615 South Locust Grove Road, including all staff comments. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor'? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. We still have one more, if you're interested. Rohm: You can do the other one, Dave. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 4, 2004 Page 47 of 76 Zaremba: Okay. Let see. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the Council recommending approval of Item 8 on our agenda, PP 04-001, request for preliminary plat approval of 98 single family residential building lots and seven common lots on 24.45 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Roseleaf Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC, 3615 South Locust Grove Road, to included all staff comments of their staff memo for the hearing date of March 4th, 2004, received by the city clerk March 1, 2004, with the following changes: The note that I'm refen-ing to, the revision of plat, with a revision date of March 2nd, '04, received by the city clerk March 4, 2004, and the changes to the staff notes are: On page eight, preliminary plat special considerations, paragraph one, the second paragraph in that refers to some lot and block numbers and those lot and block numbers should now be Block 3, lot 15, and Lot 20. And the point of that is that those lots shall take access from Chatsworth. On page nine, paragraph three, will be changed to read applicant has agreed to reconfigure, so that the Bell property, which is Block 1, Lot 5, takes access internally and .the city has agreed to help the permit for a new garage and conversion of the current garage to living space. Then, on page 12 we will add a paragraph 12 that says a reference to the right-to-farm act shall be stated on the face of the plat. Moe: Second. Zaremba: End of motion. Moe: Make sure you were done there. Zaremba: Did we get everything? Borup: I think so. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Thank you. Commissioners, are we -- would we like a short break? Okay. We will take a short break at this time. (Recess.) Item 9: Public Hearing: CUP 04-002 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a temporary bank facility with adrive-thru window and adrive-thru window for the permanent structure in a C-C zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by CSHQA -southwest corner of East Overland Road and South Eagle Road: