Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 1, 2004 P&Z MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 11 of 35 Moe: Second. Borup: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Public Hearing: AZ 03-036 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. -South of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 03-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 81 building lots and 11 other lots on 19.7 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. -South of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 04-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for reduced lot frontages, lot sizes and block lengths that are less than the 500 foot minimum in a proposed R-8 zone for Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason & Stanfield, Inc. -South of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road: Borup: Thank you. Okay. Next public hearings are AZ 03-036, request for annexation and zoning of 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2, by Earl, Mason, & Stanfield and Public Hearing PP 03-012, request for preliminary plat approval of 81 building lots, and Public Hearing CUP 04-016, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for reduced lot frontage, lot sizes, and block lengths. I'd like to open all three hearings at this time and start with the staff report. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Chairman. Staff -- we outlined a lot of background on this application since you have spent quite a bit of time with it in the past, so I -- unless you would prefer, I was just planning to kind of hit a few of the highlights and, then, allow the applicant to basically address the Commission with some of the modifications, but in a nutshell what happened is that this Commission recommended approval of Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 in February of this year and after the hearings at the Council, the Council recommended denial of both the annexation and the preliminary plat and I included in the report the reasons for those denials. Then, at the request of Mr. Wood, the developer, the Council decided to not adopt the findings for denial and, instead, was convinced that there had been enough discussions with the neighbors in the area that they wanted to give them another shot, but because of the additional lots and some street configuration changes, the difference in the plat was enough that they weren't comfortable proceeding, so they remanded it back to you. So, I think in a nutshell that's what has happened. There have been several discussions and there is a little six-page letter -- I don't know if you got it in your packets, but that basically goes through the various ends and outs that the developer took, particularly with Salisbury Subdivision. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 12 of 35 So, the main difference -- well, there is two. One is that you have a new application before you this time that you did not have last time in February and that is a planned development application and the reason that they have that is that they are proposing lot sizes that -- and frontages that are below the R-8 minimum and so they have requested a planned development for that and they have added an amenity. So, that's new. And, then, the other big difference is the additional lots and street difference. They have changed the configuration of the street a little bit. The main point, I guess, on page two is that of the five reasons that the City Council denied this project, they really were not explicit as to the last two, number four and five. The minutes from that City Council meeting reflect a little bit of discussion, but, essentially, they came up with saying number four, the proposed R-8, is not reflective of the City of Meridian's vision and, number five, annexation is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian, given the nature of the development. So, unfortunately, staff really doesn't have any additional information on those two reasons for denial, other than to say I think that because the Council did choose to remand it, that maybe that's a sign that they felt that there had been enough changes that the annexation may be worthwhile. So, I will just touch briefly here on the plat itself. Just as a reminder where we are talking about, Ustick Road runs here. Cedar Springs Professional Center that had the car wash and the coffee kiosk and the office buildings, that's located here at this yellow -- and that's Venable on the north side of Ustick and, then, Venable on the south side continues here. All Ada County property on the south side of Ustick, not been annexed. You do have Salisbury Lane Subdivision, which is here, and, then; Landsbury Subdivision, which is below that. They are connected here. And, then, Clearbrook Estates is under construction right now. This map doesn't show it, but it has been approved, it has a final plat, and it does stub here at the southeast comer. And, then, on the south side you have Waterbury Park Subdivision. And those are all zoned R-4 and have right around three to a little over three dwelling units per acre on average in those surrounding subdivisions. The request for you tonight is to an R-8 zone for these 19 acres. Staff -- we had provided our analysis there in the report and the Comprehensive Plan. We did feel it substantially complied. The neighbor -- future neighborhood center, which would be, actually, on both sides of Ustick, would generally be here on the north side with Venable Lane or at least something similar to Venable that would come as the main north-south street through that center and we do anticipate -- the Comprehensive Plan anticipates higher densities and non-residential uses and so the R-8 we felt was a good transition between the R-4 zoning that's south and east and the' higher density center. So, the R-8 was recommended there or was recommended for approval to you. So, that's the rezone request. And, then, here is the preliminary plat. Maybe I'll talk from this -- from this one. This slide here is actually the landscape plan, but it doesn't have the contour lines and maybe is a little easier for you to read. Again, there is one existing stub street to the property and that is from Salisbury Lane Subdivision here. It's called Sedgwick. And, then, Clearbrook Estates, which I mentioned is under construction, is down here. So, it's pretty reasonable to assume that they would have -- at the time of construction for this you would probably have Indian Creek built, so they would likely have both of these stub streets available. So, they have proposed to come in off Sedgwick and, then, your street system here is laid out a little different in that before this continued to the east and it -- the testimony that we received from the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 13 of 35 neighborhoods was that they felt that that would encourage much more pass-through or cut-through traffic, so the developer modified that to not have a straight through to the west. It's a little bit more circuitous. They have adjusted these blocks and, essentially, have R-4 size lots around the perimeter where there is existing subdivisions. Those are all over the 8,000 minimum square foot in the R-4 and they also have the R-4s here on the west side of this new street. And, then, as you go to the west you get the smaller R- 8size lots and that is these blocks that are over here on the west. The amenity that they are proposing -- well, they have three, actually. The first one is that they have over ten percent of open space, which counts as one amenity. The second amenity that they are proposing is a gazebo, which was submitted here. This is the proposed gazebo that they had in their application. This would be located down here next to the South Slough and, then, the third amenity is to ten-foot wide hard surface pathway that would be a public pathway. Clearbrook Estates is constructing it to this boundary and, then, they would pick that up and continue it on to the west. So, those are the three amenities that are proposed with the planned development. And, again, they are requesting a 4,550 square foot lot size as a minimum, 50-foot minimum lot frontages, and a minimum block length of 300 feet. Five hundred is what the code says. This Commission and the Council have recommended approval of the less than 500 and in this case you really -- you have this lot -- this block here and this one's a little over 300 and this one's a little over 300. Staff supports it, because we think that the -- rather than having a cul-de-sac in here, which might be what you end up with to get over the 500, we think this 300 is a good number, it provides for multiple ways to get to the lots for emergency services, rather than a cul-de-sac. Then, I will point out two of the items under special considerations on page ten of the staff report. We have several listed there, but I think mast of those got discussion at the last -- at the last hearings regarding the construction entrance, how you're going to move the construction traffic around in here. The storm water Swale design. They did add the properties down there in the southwest corner. There is an existing sewer trunk line that comes across here and in a common lot -- both of these common lots on the north and south sides of the new street. So, then, I think that brings me to number five, the fifth special consideration on page eleven, and that has to do with Venable Lane and how that will function and Ithink -- I've had several discussions back and forth with Scott Stanfield, their engineer, as well as Mr. Wood, the developer, and ACHD about this private lane and, actually, as late as today I just got some more information. If you recall -- go back here. Venable Lane, actually, is -- it is a private lane, but in terms of, excuse me, ownership, it has -- it's split. It's 40 feet wide, but it -- 20 feet was under private ownership and that's the 20 feet on the west side and 20 feet was a mystery before, but there was some research done and in, apparently, 1909 there is a deed that Ada County Highway District does have that it was deeded to the public in 1909 and that is the eastern 20 feet of Venable, which starts here at Ustick and runs 60 rods, which is -- before they started using feet was an old survey term that the 1909 deed references 60 rods in length and, at any rate, that is now, apparently, a public right of way, 20 feet on the east side, according to the deeds that were given to me by the highway district. They are now recognizing that they have that. So, the big question, then, became at our last hearing does Venable Lane turn into a collector, since it's right on the mid mile in this whole mile, it's on the mid mile, and, if so, is it the whole length that serves as a collector or is it only part way down? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 14 of 35 Should this subdivision provide access to that or not. As you can see on the south side, there is no way to get across the slough. You will never see a bridge or a culvert crossing there, so the nearest point of access is about 500 feet to the west and here is a stub street here coming out of Waterbury, which does not stub to this project. So, at the end of Venable there is no way to cross the South Slough and so all that to say what staff is recommending is in the future we envision a -- when this parcel develops on the north side, Venable or some other public street that may not have that name, but hopefully would, would come down at least 500 to 800 feet,. so that you have an intersection on Ustick where you can access to the north or where you can come to the south and, then, you would have a future east-west street that would come probably right in this area. So, this Venable Lane has a large, deep ditch that provides a little bit of a challenge to cross, but what we are recommending in the future is that when you see these come in there would be at least one east-west connection across that lane and across the ditch, so that you can get all of this future development to have some way to move east and west out going on to Ustick Road. The plat that is here on the slide -- let's see. Go back here. Does not show a stub street to Venable in this location and they do show a pedestrian connection and that would allow -- should Venable maybe become a pathway in the future, it may allow some pedestrian access to that or it may also get pedestrians a way to cross east and west, but not necessarily cars. And there are certainly a lot of pros to just having people funnel to the north. They have two stub streets to the north and, you know, staff is supportive of this design. I think the way that I laid it out in the staff report, wanted to just present the issue and let the Commission give your recommendation to the City Council as to whether or not you think a stub street should be provided. If there was, obviously, it would not connect to Venable, the main purpose for it would be to continue further to the west and to serve this area. So, the plat that was circulated actually shows a stub street like this -- this is the landscape plan, which is the April plat, and, then, this plat is the June 24th plat that is the most recent and that does not have the stub street. So, I think that's really probably the main, as far as Venable goes, the item for discussion. And, then, of course, the rezone and the plat and the planned development, they are also there for your discussion tonight, so -- Rohm: Brad, is the 20 foot dedicated right of way on the -- on this line here or is it slid over in the other half of Venable. Hawkins-Clark: No. You were correct the first time. Rohm: The first time? So, it's adjacent to this land itself? Hawkins-Clark: It is. Rohm: And is this developer going to develop that portion of Venable? Hawkins-Clark: They have no control over that land. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 15 of 35 Rohm: Well, with it being -- if it's public right of way, wouldn't it -- shouldn't it be developed as part of this project, if it's public right of way? Hawkins-Clark: Well, Commissioner, bare in mind it's only 20 feet wide and the highway district will not accept dedication of right of way that's less than 40. That's their policy, so what can you do with it is the question and -- Borup: It sounds like they have a deed to it, but not necessarily a right of way established, is that -- would that be correct? They have been deeded the property, but that's -- but that has not been designated as a public right of way. Hawkins-Clark: Corcect. I mean that may be somewhat semantics. You know, right of way is, essentially, land held in ownership by the highway district and -- Borup: But not what they would consider alegal -- Hawkins-Clark: Not an improvement street section. Right. Rohm: Okay. That's -- Zaremba: But that would answer the other question about whether there should be a ten foot landscape buffer if this is public property, then, the ten foot landscape buffer should happen; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: The subdivision code does require -- it does not allow double fronted lots, so, yes, you have these lots that are along their west boundary that have frontage on the new internal local street. If this became a street, they would be double fronted and, therefore, would have to have some common lot to separate them, so they would not be able to access out of both their front yard and their back yard. However, I think if -- we did receive a revised staff report from the highway district, which, essentially, supports this. They have no intention of ever improving that 20 feet. And should you require this developer to do a ten-foot buffer on land that is not anticipated to be a public street is, I guess, for you to decide, but it doesn't seem to make much sense. Zaremba: Okay. One other question. You have referenced several times the preliminary plat dated 6124104. The copy that I'm looking at has no western stub street that has that date -- what you're showing, it doesn't have this stub street. Am I looking at the -- Borup: That's the same one I have. Zaremba: It's dated 6/24104 and I would guess from having read ACHD's comments, that ACHD was satisfied with the stub street going to the north and not the west one. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 16 of 35 Hawkins-Clark: Yes. That's correct. My apologies. I think we -- our assistant must have pulled an older plat, so, yeah, the one that is on the slide is not the one that's dated 6124. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: The one that's dated 6/24 is the one that the staff report's based on and does not have the stub that's shown there. Zaremba: It does have the one that goes north, it does not -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: -- have the one that goes west. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: This is the one we are to make consideration off of, then? So, this paper was the correct one? Zaremba: Yeah. And the staff report correctly references this as being 6/24104. I'm just saying that we need to consider the one we are holding, not the one that's on the -- Hawkins-Clark: On the slide. Right. Zaremba: Okay. Okay. I didn't have any other questions. ACHD seemed to be supportive of this configuration. Borup: Yeah. And probably more than that. They said they support the applicant's proposal. In fact, they have concerns if we had done otherwise. That was on page four and five on the ACHD -- Zaremba: On the ACHD report? Borup: Yeah. Okay. Any other comments or questions? Anything else, Brad, that you had? Hawkins-Clark: No. Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation? Stanfield: Scott Stanfield, Earl, Mason, Stanfield Engineering, 314 Badiola in Caldwell. Brad did a real good job. In fact, I was able to cross a lot of things off my list, because he addressed them quite well. I have got to apologize for that plan. Christy called me Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 17 of 35 today in a panic, said a-mail me something for the presentation, so I, obviously, grabbed the wrong one, sent it to her, so I apologize for that, Brad. With that said, I will just key into some of the items --outstanding items. First of all, if I could point you over there to the display over there that Mr. Wood is putting up, you can really see our layout a little bit better than on the blue line. What you see before you and on this color rendering is a result of numerous discussions with Mr. Snodgrass, the neighbor to the east, and probably about 40 people from the neighborhood to the east also. I don't see any of them here tonight, I don't think, so, hopefully, that's a good sign that we listened to their concerns. The main item, we did pull the road down to the south, so we don't have a direct connection to those folks and the fire department and ACHD was amenable to that. We increased the lot sizes on the easterly half to be more conducive to what those forks currently own and possess. With that said on the westerly half we went quite a bit denser than what we proposed before and went with the narrow lot frontage and the narrower or a smaller square footage and you can see we added some pretty generous open spaces, common areas, that will be owned and maintain by the HOA in a manicured, consistent basis, just a visual corridor for people walking around and they can enjoy and use. We have added the gazebo and if you look at the map you're going to see two little squares north and south of the gazebo, those are permanent picnic benches that Mr. Wood will put up also, so it's kind of a picnic usable area and will connect to the pathway system. So, that's the general changes that you have seen. Venable -- Brad was correct, there was a 1909 deed that Jeffs attorney dug in deeper and ACHD dug in deeper and that, indeed, there is this document out there. In fact, ACHD's report requires as a condition in their request that we -- I believe the word was exchange the right of way. The bottom line is what that means is that they want Jeff Wood to go through the vacation process for that portion, north to south, adjacent to his west boundary and, actually, vacate that, get rid of it, take it off the books. Just costs him the application fee of 600 bucks to the highway district and goes through a Public Hearing process and it will revert back to Mr. Wood, because that 20 feet back in 1909 turns out to actually be part of the overall mother parcel, if you will. So, it doesn't split half and half to each owner, it will go to Jeff Wood, the current parcel owner. At that point what do we do -- we didn't include it in the plat now, because it's public right of way, but it won't be by the time we get to final plat and the question is what do we do with it. Rohm: That's a good question. Stanfield: Yes. And we can do several things with it. I think the developer Jeff is proposing to landscape it and probably even continue our pathway north to south. It would make a great pedestrian connection to the hopeful future neighborhood center to the north. At this point we don't envision deepening our lots along that tier. There is no reason to do that, they are generously deep enough and I think it would behoove everybody and be a good public use to tum that into a pathway lot. One thing that may hamper that is Mr. Semanich, who I think by now he owns Venable Lane, the other 20- foot to the west. The documents indicate that that 20 feet, a good portion of his 20 feet, may actually fall within the Flack Drain. If we vacate that, tum the whole thing into a pathway, then, until he has a stub street provided from his north, which is going into Meddian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 18 of 35 development, he's got that to option to a developer, he may not have access, so there should be some consideration to Mr. Semanich to be able to use that until such a time that he has an improved stub street. I just don't want to cut him off and vacate it and put a pathway through there and expect him to drive down the middle of the drain, so I think that's an issue we can resolve and, obviously, each day we will learn more and more, but I suppose ultimately that will be dedicated to Jeff by the time we submit our first final plat to ACHD and we would agree to tum that into a pathway at the appropriate time, recognizing Mr. Semanich's needs. Zaremba: Excuse me. While you're on that subject, that would, then, just become a common area lot and maintained by the homeowners association? Stanfield: Yes, it would be, but the question would be can we include it in our final plat. It's another lot that would be created above and beyond the preliminary plat. No. No, it wouldn't. We have that green lot on the southerly portion. Rohm: Somewhere in there? Stanfield: Oh, look at this. Is that a pointer? Right here, which is a pathway connection to Mr. Semanich's piece. We could extend our lot and just wrap it around north to south and that wouldn't increase our lots. Zaremba: Same lot and block number and it would become an L-shaped lot. Stanfield: Correct. I suppose that would work. So, we would meet the number of lot requirements that's before you tonight. I think that's a good solution to that. I think in the staff report the staff was concerned about what we were going to do with these right here and currently I believe it's a graveled pathway that actually comes through here and according to some of the neighbors, they use that quite a bit to walk down here to the unimproved slough. In my opinion, I don't think a gravel roadway there would look very pleasant, so if it would be acceptable to public works, we would take the grass Crete approach and dress it up and make it pretty and just not in the best interest of anybody to leave it graveled, so if it's okay with others, given the thumbs up, we would offer to grass Crete that so it's more usable. I think the reasons the Council gave for denial, items four and five that Brad touched upon; I think that was the result of items one through three. With those results before us, well, the obvious conclusion is that it does -- it's not in the best interest of the city. So, I think they are all tie in together and I'm quite confident by the time we get to the Council we probably won't have any neighbors there either. Really hunkered down and poured over the legal staff, ACHD, and all the neighbors. So, with that I will try and answer any questions you may have. Borup: Questions for Mr. Stanfield? Rohm: My only question is when you went through your redesign process, I would presume that you took the Mark Snodgrass letter and tried to incorporate the concerns the best that you could to resolve those issues? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 19 of 35 Stanfield: Correct. Rohm: And that's -- the resulting plat here is taking that into consideration? Stanfield: Correct. That's pretty much -- we used that as our checklist in all our discussions with Mr. Snodgrass. Rohm: And I think just as second to that is if there are people in the audience that would like to speak to that same issue, then, I'd feel more comfortable that all of his concerns in the letter were addressed. Stanfield: Sure. Rohm: So, the only person that could speak to that is someone other than yourself. Stanfield: Correct. I would be probably more biased. Rohm: Right. Right. Okay. Good. Stanfield: That's a polite way to put it. Rohm: I don't have anything else. Borup: Did the -- I don't have a -- of course, information on the original plat. Did the lot count stay about the same? Stanfield: No. The lot count actually went up, Mr. Chairman. It actually went up. Borup: Because of the smaller ones that were -- Stanfield: Correct. Because of the smaller lots. Borup: Because these other increased quite a bit in size. Stanfield: Yes. The other one's to the east. Yeah. But our actual lot count went up and our open space went up from I think five percent to 15 percent. Odd that your open space will go up drastically and your lot-count would go up, maybe about eight -- Hawkins-Clark: Nine. Stanfield: It's been such a long time. So, I think it will benefit everybody, really, at the end of the day. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 20 of 35 Zaremba: I think the only question that I have that needs some discussion is the construction traffic plan -- or I forget how that was phrased, but something -- if there is only one access at the time, what can you do about construction traffic? Stanfield: Well, I go back, Commissioner, to if -- if -- I can't remember the name of it. Indian Rocks Street, if it's not improved -- I should have drove by there to check the condition and maybe Mr. Wood knows, but we fully believe it will be improved by the time we get there. Borup: They have been working on it for a couple months. Stanfield: Yeah. And from my experience we areaways off from starting construction. We have to get through Council and get through our design phase. I'd like to tell Jeff that would take me a couple days, but it's probably going to take me at least a month and, then, city review. But with that said, the Venable Lane, quote, right of way, to the north-south will technically still exist during construction, because the plat won't be recorded and a vacation won't be complete, so providing that we can maintain that and leave it in a good condition and water it frequently so as not to disturb the neighbors and leave it accessible to the neighbors, I think that's an excellent construction traffic approach. Zaremba: Sounds good me. Borup: Okay. Rohm: Thank you. Borup: Any other questions? Commissioner? Newton-Huckabay: I wonder why there is not the west stub street to connect into. That is not the correct plan; right? Stanfield: Correct, Commissioner. Your hard copy -- Newton-Huckabay: Because you just said they are getting ready to develop the land to the west of there. Would it not be beneficial to have another street running into that, what I assume is going to be more additional development. Stanfield: I'll clarify that, Commissioner. If I can find one -- right about up in here. This is the area that Mr. Semanich has optioned to a developer, all the way up to Ustick. And that development team has met with the city and they are proposing at least one east-west connection here. Mr. Semanich -- I believe it's in a trust. He owns roughly seven acres right here. I think that line is actually down here. He has seven acres right in here. Currently provided a stub from the south. Granted, there is a -- the slough is in the way and I believe the city will require and the developer has agreed with Mr. Semanich as he moves down here and plats this, he will improve a street stub to him Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 21 of 35 also. So, there is just this roughly -- and Mr. Semanich can correct me -- I think just seven acres right in there. So, with that ACRD and I believe your staff agreed that there wasn't much use to put an east-west connection at that point. Newton-Huckabay: So, there will be one to the north and one to the south? Stanfield: Correct. Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. An east-west connection on the north at some point and an east-west connection on the south. Stanfield: Correct. Newton-Huckabay: Okay. I'm following you. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Does that conclude? Thank you. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this application? Seeing none. No. We have got one. Wood: Good evening, my name is Jeff Wood, 1282 East Braemere. I just wanted to clarify one point about Indian Rocks Road. That should be paved at the end of this month, so we should have two access roads in there, you know, well before the construction phase. Borup: Okay. It looked like they have got the sewer line in and all that. Wood: Yeah. The sewer is in, the utilities are in, they are just waiting for the final paving now and I spoke with the engineer from Briggs and he thought that it would be finished by the end of the month. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Wood: Be happy to answer any other questions. Borup: Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, we had no other testimony. Zaremba: Well, then, that doesn't require any rebuttal from the applicant. Borup: No. That's what I felt. Zaremba: I don't know whether this is a question orjust to state my surprise, but I think I have actually been given the answer. I was surprised to see that open space counts as an amenity. Is that because they are providing above and beyond what the requirement is and it's the excess open space that counts as an amenity? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct, Commissioner. If it's - if they were just meeting the code, which is five percent, it would not count as an amenity. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 22 of 35 Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: And, actually, even if they provided 9.9 percent open space, it would not counted as an amenity, they would have to provide ten or above. Ten percent of the gross-area. And that open space, you know, needs to be passive or active, but certainly available to the residents, you know, in some fashion, not, you know, hidden back and like counted as part of the ditch. In this case they actually -- they are not counting the channel itself in that calculation, so it will have a pathway in it, so we have - - you know, we have certainly considered that usable open space and -- but, yes, I was surprised, too. The larger area, if you didn't notice, there is a large like 70 foot wide lot here that's behind these lots and, then, a -- like a 60-foot wide common lot here that flares out and, then, they have a common lot here, too. So, you have an irrigation ditch that will be piped that will run through this common lot all the way through the project and -- but it will be piped in, so you will be able to have grass over it and things like that, so -- Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: I guess the one other thing, if I could point out, if they vacate the Venable Lane -- at this point that is not part of their annexation legal description, so that they would have to come back separately at a later date to annex that property. Does that make sense? Rohm: They can't amend their preliminary plat at their final plat and add that to it and, then, it would be included in the annexation process? Is it possible that that -- Hawkins-Clark: Well, it's passible to do that from a survey standpoint, I suppose, but not -- you know, not from an annexation standpoint. Rohm: I was going to ask you about that. That 20-foot just seems to be in limbo still. It's kind of like going to be a subdivision of its own. Gabbert: Commissioners? Zaremba: Since the hearing is still open can I ask the application for -- Borup: Yeah. Let's do that. Go ahead. Gabbert: Commissioners, I just had a real quick question for the applicant or Brad. Brad, has that -- has that vacation process been initiated yet or -- it's my understanding from where we are currently at, ACHD owns that 20-foot right of way currently and the applicant, upon completion of such a vacation hearing would -- I mean that land would accrue back to this property, but it seems like what we are discussing now is a future -- is approving a plan of somebody else's property, that 20-foot, you know, being made into this walking path and in my experience highway districts are -- when they say one Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 23 of 35 thing, it's nice, but what they do is another. Vacation of easements and right of ways takes a lot of consideration, so I just wanted to caution the Commissioners perhaps in their decision on conditioning such approval of a plan upon the successful vacation of that lot, because otherwise, we are doing something with somebody else's land. Rohm: I think that's like saying don't hold your breath. Zaremba: Well, my question was going to be -- and I think according to the preliminary plat that we have, we are not considering that 20 feet. It's outside of what we have been provided, so even though the applicant has offered some suggestions for what may happen to it, I'm not basing my decision on that. Gabbert: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that 20 feet wasn't in this conversation today. Zaremba: My question for the applicant, then, would be would you rather have us move this ahead and come back later separately about that 20 feet, whenever there is some resolution, or would you rather have us continue this until you can add that 20 feet? Stanfield: The first option. Zaremba: I suspected that, but -- Stanfield: I feel the darts hitting me in the back of the head right now. Zaremba: Just wanted to hear it from you. Stanfield: And that's precisely why we didn't want to put it in this application, to keep them separate. It's athree -- I talked to ACHD today and it's going to take about a three-month process to go through the vacation and it is in their staff report. It will be a condition upon final plat. So, again, don't hold your breath is always true, but at least it's in their record and we will initiate that ASAP. We will take the first option. Zaremba: Great. Thanks. Stanfield: Thank you. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move these three public hearings be closed. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning 8 Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 24 of 35 Zaremba: Let's see. Brad, would you think through real quick, is there anything we need to change in the staff report? It seems to me agreements have been made and I haven't heard anything we need to change. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner Zaremba, that's correct, I think the only -- well, no, that's in there, too. So, yeah, I did not make any notes. Zaremba: Okay. Borup: Did we get clarification -- I'm sorry. Clarification on Lot 2, Block 4? I guess I'll ask you that. There was -- and the staff report had a question on the frontage on Lot 2, Block 4. Hawkins-Clark: Oh, right. Thank you. No, I -- is it possible now that the hearing's closed to have that addressed by the application or -- because I -- I guess I'm not worried that much about it, it's just that the scale on this plat was such that it was definitely below the 50, but -- Borup: That's -- yeah. I went through the same -- do you want to just maybe mention to Brad and -- Zaremba: Maybe have a private conversation at the table -- Borup: We could reopen the hearing, but that may be faster if you just would let him know. No, you go ahead and let him know. Zaremba: While he's doing that, Mr. Chairman, you were referring to page 12 -- Borup: Yes. Zaremba: -- paragraph seven? Borup: Right. Zaremba: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: So, Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, it sounds like they would be able to meet the 50 foot minimum frontage as proposed. Borup: Okay. So, it may need a slight adjustment either way. They will be taking care of it it sounds like. Okay. Zaremba: Okay. Well, the current statement just says the applicant shall insure that it meets the 50 foot requirement by the final plat and it sounds like they have agreed to do that, so -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission July 1, 2004 Page 25 of 35 Borup: Well, yeah, that's true. So, that wouldn't even be -- that wouldn't be any change there. Zaremba: Simplify it. We'll just leave it alone. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending approval of AZ 03-036, request for annexation and zoning 19.7 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc., south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 1, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of PP 03-012, request for preliminary plat approval for 81 building lots and 11 other lots on 19.7 acres in a propose R-8 zone for Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc., south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 1, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move we forward to the City Council recommending approval of CUP 04-016, request fora Conditional Use Permit fora planned development for reduced lot frontages, lot sizes, and block lengths that are less than the 500 foot minimum in a proposed R-8 zone for Salisbury Subdivision No. 2 by Earl, Mason, and Stanfield, Inc., south of West Ustick Road and west of North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date July 1, 2004. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor'? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Public Hearing: CUP 04-014 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for modification of an existing CUP in an L-O zone of Meadowlake Village Continuing Care Retirement Center (CCRC) by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC -south of East Franklin Road and east of North Eagle Road: