July 15, 2004 P&Z Minutes
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
Juiy 15, 2004
Page 150f67
Borup: We'll put them last and if we don't make it, then --
Zaremba: That works. Mr. Chairman, I move that we table Item 9 on our agenda, CUP
04-020, until our meeting of August 5th and require that all proper notice occur before
that.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 10:
Item 11:
Item 12:
Public Hearing: AZ 04-014 Request for Annexation & Zoning of 30 acres
from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by
Sagewood Development, Inc. - north of West Ustick Road and east of
North Linder Road:
Public Hearing: PP 04-019 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 136
single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 30 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by
Sagewood Development, Inc. - north of West Ustick Road and east of
North Linder Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 04-021 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Development for a residential subdivision for proposed Sienna
Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc. - north of West
Ustick and east of North Linder Road:
Borup: Thank you. I apologize to anybody who came and was waiting for that. Our
next Public Hearing is Sienna Creek Subdivision. Public Hearing AZ 04-014, request
for annexation and zoning of 30 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for the proposed Sienna
Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development. This is north of West Ustick Road and
east of North Linder. And Public Hearing PP 04-019, request for preliminary plat
approval of 136 single-family residential lots and 30 common lots. And CUP 04-021,
request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a residential
subdivision, again, for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision. We would like to open all
three hearings at this time and start with the staff report.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, this application is for, again,
Sienna Creek Subdivision. It's located on 30 acres. It's currently in the county with
RUT zoning. They are requesting R-8 zoning. It's located adjacent to the existing
Baldwin Park Subdivision. I don't have a pointer. Baldwin Park Subdivision is the
subdivision north of the subject property. And Cedar Springs Subdivision is located just
to the east of the subject property and the Baldwin Park Addition is that yellow square
just to the north of the subject property. So, I just wanted to go through where this is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 15. 2004
Page 16 0167
located. It's half a mile east of Linder Road, just west of the infamous Venable Lane,
and a third of a mile north of Ustick. The project consists of 136 building lots. I'll go to
the plat. A hundred and thirty-six building lots and they are -- so there are three
applications, annexation and rezone, preliminary plat, and the Conditional Use Permit,
which is a plant development, where they are requesting reduced lot sizes, reduced
frontages, and permission to have two blocks exceed 1,000 feet in length. I will see if I
have a -- this is a little cleaner copy. Through the planned development they will be
providing two amenities. The first of these is their common area, which will equal about
12 -- a little over 12 percent of the subdivision will be common area and open space and
the applicant will give us some more details tonight on the proposed parks and picnic
areas that they are going to have for -- for one of their amenities staff was concerned
when we initially reviewed the application that we didn't have enough details, so they'll
fill some of those details in this evening. And I wanted to go through some of the issues
associated with this application, although staff is definitely in favor of the application and
recommends approval. There are a couple of issues. I don't know if you will have a
copy of the draft ACHD report on this project. I just got this -- I think it was today. And it
hasn't been finalized; it hasn't gone through their commission yet. One of the changes
they are requiring the applicant to make is to have Ashby -- it's either Ashby Way or
Ashby Court -- I think it's a court, because it doesn't go through yet. They want to have
Ashby Court go through and connect to Venable Lane. So, the applicant will speak to
that. ACHD is requiring that. Staff would like to see a second -- a second stub street.
There is currently one -- anyway, there is currently one -- thank you. One stub on the
western side of the subject property and currently the applicant is exceeding the
maximum 1,000-foot block length. Staff would like to see a second stub go through,
preferably connecting North Arches Avenue to the subject property to the south. There
are -- let me see if I can go back to the vicinity map. There are two -- two properties
south of this subject parcel and, generally, you know, when we are looking at areas
developing, we'd like to see a stub to each of those -- I would like to see a stub to each
of those properties. And ACHD is supportive of this recommendation of staff, but they
are not requiring it, so this decision will be up to the Commission and the Council. But,
generally, it's a good idea to provide connectivity between areas where you see
potential development happening. And the third issue I'd like to go through -- I'll go
back to the plat. On some of the smaller -- these smaller lots, they are 50 feet in width
and the applicant -- they didn't request this as an initial part of the -- initially for the
application, but they'd like to request the ability to do attached single family homes on
those lots. It's permitted in the zone. They wouldn't need to do -- to get any exceptions
through the planned development, they would just like to -- and they are not certain if
they would actually construct attached single family, but they'd like that ability to do so
and staff is fully supportive of that. It's another housing choice for the citizens of
Meridian and it's a good thing. So, that wraps up the staff report. Are there any
questions of staff?
Zaremba: I do have one question and this goes back to discussion long ago about how
block length is measured. Is it still being measured along the back property line, which
means that the measurement that you got actually would be along this whole U-shape?
Is that's what's over 1,000 feet?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
July 15. 2004
Page 17 0167
Kirkpatrick: We would be measuring it from -- from that stub on the westem end to the
end of the cul-de-sac.
Zaremba: Okay. Not around the U?
Kirkpatrick: Not around -- not around the U. I don't -- no, I don't think we have ever -- I
have never measured it that way before.
Zaremba: So, even putting a road through to Venable still leaves the block length more
than the 1,000, by the way we measure it?
Kirkpatrick: It does. And the applicant's also proposing moving that stub on the western
end to the center of the subdivision, which would solve the block length problem. It
doesn't provide two stubs to the properties to the south, however. And the road on the
western edge of the property, that exceeds 1,000 feet in length, but that's -- there is a
school site adjacent to this subject property and there really are no options and there is
-- they can't stub, so we have to allow that.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Any other questions from any of the Commissioners?
Rohm: Wendy, did you say that the property to the west is going to be a school?
Kirkpatrick: I believe it's going to be a middle school.
Newton-Huckabay: It is an existing middle school.
Kirkpatrick: Oh, it is. It's been constructed?
Borup: It's already there.
Rohm: Should there not be some sort of a pathway?
Kirkpatrick: There is, actually.
Rohm: Oh. Okay. All right. Good. Thank you. That's it.
Borup: Okay. Would the applicant like to make their presentation?
Nickel: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Shawn Nickel, 52
North 2nd Street in Eagle, here tonight representing Sagewood Development
Corporation in the development of Sienna Creek Subdivision. Thanks, Wendy, for your
staff report. She went through the majority, so I'll try not to -- I'll try not to be too long.
The developer is here tonight, she'd like to get up and kind of introduce herself and kind
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 15, 2004
Page 180167
of explain the fun stuff of the subdivision. I'll just talk about some technical issues and
get on with it. As staff stated, there is 136 residential lots, 13 common lots, and kind of
colored up, this is what it -- this is what it looks like, so, as you can see, the 12.3 percent
of the open space has been greatly laid out to kind of spread out throughout the
subdivision and provide a lot of nice large open spaces and as you can see -- as you
can see, it's got -. it's got open space along the main roadway, which will provide for a
nice pathway detached sidewalk along there, in addition to a large park area here. Park
area here. This will be used more for combination drainage and open space, be that
slight detention area, but this will be strictly open space, park space, and that's where
we expect to have our amenities and those will include kind of a tot lot equipment
apparatus for children and also kind of a gathering picnic area, seating -- the developer
does have some examples that she's going to show you. A lot of landscaping and, you
know, kind of a community gathering area, in addition to the over ten percent open
space that we are providing within the development. We are asking for a Conditional
Use Permit for a planned development, as stated by staff, and that's to allow for the
reduction in the lot sizes, both widths and square footage. As you can see, we do have
an alleyway located right here and this is the area that staff was talking about. We want
to have the option of the zero lot lines to provide a builder, if he wants to come in and
attach some of the houses over there. And I believe that is allowed currently in the R-8
zone, we just want to get that on the record that that is our intent to have that option.
Hopefully it will happen, but that -- you know, that's market driven. With regards to the
stub street, this block length does not meet the 1,000-foot maximum width. What we
are proposing -- and we have met with ACHD and they are agreeable to this -- is to
relocate this stub over to this area right here, which would, then, allow that -- allow that
block length not to exceed that 1,000 feet. I don't think it's necessary to have two stub
streets, because when these properties develop, they will develop with stub streets as
well and you will have connectivity throughout -- you know, through these subdivisions
and throughout the community. We are providing a pathway to the school. That's the
Sawtooth Middle School and it is under construction, it's about complete, I think they are
going to start in the fall. So, that's one. That's basically the only condition or
recommendation that we are not in favor of. Everything else in the staff report is very
specific, we have no problems with those, with the exception of that second stub street,
we would like the ability to move that stub -- existing stub over to that block. That would
reduce that length.
Borup: So, that was in alignment with one of those other streets or --
Zaremba: Yeah.
Nickel: I think what we are proposing is right here.
Borup: About in line with the alley?
Nickel: It would align with that alleyway.
Borup: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Juiy 15, 2004
Page 190167
Zaremba: I was going to discuss that with you after you concluded, but since we have
brought it up --
Kirkpatrick: Oh, and, Chairman, Members of the Commission, I misspoke. The street
that I was recommending that they stub wasn't Arches, it was Anton. That's a little bit --
that's one street over to the east.
Nickel: And that brings up the other question with regards to ACHD's requirement. They
are going to require this street right here to be connected out to Venable. We have
agreed with them to do that. It's not going to massively affect our design, we won't lose
any lots. We have a pathway there right now, so that -- we'll just go through and it will
line up with the street to the -- the existing street to the east.
Zaremba: My opinion would be the combination of making that connection and moving
this stub street over, would probably satisfy me, and I would hope it would satisfy staff,
but I still want to discuss whether or not that should be aligned with the alley. The
problem is for me that you have a street aligned with the alley on one end and if you,
then, make this the connection into the next subdivision, I think that alley is going to be
used as a raceway and I would like to suggest that you pick one of these.
Nickel: And that's probably -- and we could do either, probably. Either that one or that
one. That is a good --
Zaremba: And I feel I would be satisfied with that.
Nickel: Okay.
Borup: Shawn, maybe while we are _. while we are on that stub street, has there been
any discussion with either one of these two property owners to the south, especially this
one right here?
Nickel: I'll defer that question to the developer.
Borup: Okay.
Nickel: Because I believe she has met with both of those property owners.
Borup: Okay.
Nickel: With regards to the Comprehensive Plan, again, as staff states in their -- in their
findings, this does meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. We are asking for 4.53
dwelling units per acre, which falls in line with medium density. Again, we are not
asking for a bonus density through the PD, strictly for the reduction to allow that
diversity in lot sizes, with the understanding that we might have the ability to attach over
in that block right there. My engineer is here if you have any specific questions on
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Juiy 15, 2004
Page 20 01 67
drainage or anything like that. We did work very diligently with staff and we appreciate
all their help and support. We did have a neighborhood meeting that was attended by
just two neighbors. There is not many neighbors out there, but they did appreciate us
having that meeting for them. We also met with Wendel Bigham at the school district to
stabilize that pathway to the school and he was satisfied with that. So, I'll stand for any
questions you have.
Borup: Questions? Any other questions?
Zaremba: You answered my question. I was going to ask that, whether the -- I
appreciate there being a pathway to the school and I was going to ask if you discussed
with them their happy location and it sounds like you did.
Nickel: We usually meet with Wendel before we do a development to make sure he's
happy with those.
Zaremba: Thank you.
Borup: Okay. Thank you. And you said the developer wanted to comment, too?
Nickel: Yes.
Wanner-Sisler: Good evening, Chairman Borup, Commissioners. My name is Lisa
Wanner-Sisler, I reside at 2752 South Goshen Way, Boise, Idaho. I have been
developing residential subdivisions in Kuna, Caldwell, and Boise, but this is my first
development in Meridian, so I wanted to take a chance to introduce myself to you
personally and speak to my development. My husband and I do have a little bit of an
industrial presence here, we are currently building Steel head Collision Center over on
Baltic in the industrial area and we will be opening that in a couple of weeks, but this is
the first residential project that I am bringing to the City of Meridian. As far as the
features in the subdivision go, in the first park area my plan was to create a restful,
peaceful, passive park, if you will, in that area, heavily landscaped, with a circular area
that comes in off of two meandering sidewalks into a large circle, similar to what you
see in this photograph. This is actually outside of Eagle City Hall, if you have ever
ventured out to Eagle, and having a combination of concrete, some fancy brick, you
know, possibly in a herringbone pattern and, then, wrought iron benches. This is a
photograph of the wrought iron benches, they are right down the street in Generations
Park, and those benches would be placed throughout this area, again, in a circular
fashion, with significant landscaping behind them in the form of trees, shrubs, and
perennial flowering bushes that are low maintenance and easy to keep in subdivisions.
This is a perfect example of that in that you see the ground cover roses, some of the
perennial day lilies and so almost you could loosely call it a park-like, you know,
botanical area that would be peaceful and restful. I also have a detached sidewalk that
goes from the first park area past all of the common areas to the second park-like area
and so there is a great deal of connectivity that runs throughout the subdivision, so that
people could feasibly come from just about any point in the development, connect onto
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
July 15, 2004
Page 21 0167
that common area pathway and walk throughout the development. Now, Shawn had
mentioned that I was going to put all my amenities up front and that, really, isn't quite
what I wanted to do, but -- but if you look at this second park that is the smaller park
area, that would across the street from the alley-loaded houses, I plan to put a tot lot
that is similar to this photo right here in that area. Now, my thinking was that the
densest part of the development is right in that area and so it made sense to me those
are going to be the folks, if they do have children, who will not have as much space for,
you know, the swing sets and so forth and so it made sense to me to locate that closer
to the dense area, so that was my thinking with the tot lot. And, of course, these are -- I
think very realistic to what I will do, but not necessarily the exact feature that I will place
on there. Then, I wanted to share with you what kind of homes I envision in the
development. Because I am new to the city, these are three homes that are actual
photographs from some of my other developments, this home being the smallest. It
sold in Kuna in the 130s. My guess is in Meridian, because lot prices are a little bit
higher, it would probably be in the 140s. This home is a little bit more expensive and
this one is selling in the 280 range and probably about the same. I see these homes
being very representative of the homes that will be built on the standard size lots that
encompass most of the perimeter of the subdivision, close to Baldwin Park, Cedar
Springs, and the middle school. And, then, in the area where there are 50 feet width
lots proposed -- I hope that I see this home built. Now, I'm a developer. I don't build.
This is a floor plan that I found and I really hope that one of the builders will want to pick
this up and build it. I specifically designed some of the 50-foot wide lots to be deeper
than 100 feet and that was for two reasons. One was to allow for some floor plans like
this one that has fairly -- a fairly jogged back end to it, but allows for a lot of use out the
back, if you can get a little more depth on the lot, and I have some of those deeper lots
in that first park-like area and I think that would be a great place to site this type of
home. I also wanted a few deeper lots there, just because, you know, people like
garages in the valley and with that deeper -- with that deeper width you could get a four
car garage, you know, two deep and two wide. So, that was my thinking there. And as
far as the alley area goes, I envision a home that would be similar to this photograph
here. I hope that I will see some front porches, particularly on the side that looks out
over to the common area space, because there is a fair amount of green and it would
be conducive sitting on your front porch and looking out at the open space. So, that's
my thinking with the development. This is just another example that fell off my board
that was supposed to have been right there. So, those are the home types that I think
will be very representative in the development. As I said, I'm not a builder I don't know
that there will be any attached housing going in, but I can see on the south end, just
below -- just below my property line to the south is a designated neighborhood center in
the Meridian Comp Plan, so it is feasible that there may be apartment buildings or, you
know, light retail or office space down there, so I did want to leave the door open that if
somebody comes with a great design, that is a zero lot line or attached, that I would
perhaps have the option of entertaining that down there. I will operate with a fairly strict
set of CC&Rs. I think they need to be reasonable, so people can live their lives, but I do
work with a good attorney, they will be very enforceable CC&Rs, actively involved in
architect control committees to make sure that what is developed is esthetically pleasing
to the eye from the curb and would certainly carry those into this development as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Juiy 15, 2004
Page 22 01 67
So, on that basis, that was the design -- oh, as far as shooting the street through. Ada
County Highway District wanted that. I don't really like it, because I liked having the one
entrance with all my amenities, but I realize that it's necessary, so we will put that -- we
will put that street through. As far as the neighbors to the south go, a couple of years
ago I was able to a reach the one neighbor to the south on the -- the more easterly side.
There is a house there that's vacant and from what I understand, the person that owned
it past away and some younger people inherited it. I have not been able to reach
anybody as of anytime late. We did hold a neighborhood meeting and, you know, we
noticed everybody we could and we didn't get any respondents from the south. So, one
of you asked a question related to stub streets to the south on that side and I have not
been able to find anybody to talk to south in that particular quadrant, so that is an
unanswered situation at this point and I'm not sure how to find somebody, given that the
house is vacant, there is nobody living there, and we don't get any responses from any
mailings. So, that's -- that's kind of where that sits right now. But, anyway, based on
that, I think we bring a good development to Meridian. I feel comfortable that it's very
marketable, that it's harmonious with the existing housing, and I stand for any questions
that you might have.
Borup: Okay. If I do have a name that -.
Wanner-Sisler: Paulson.
Borup: Yeah.
Wanner-Sisler: Do you know how to reach those people, by chance?
Borup: Yes.
Wanner-Sisler: Pardon?
Borup: I think so. I mean he contacted me about six, eight month ago.
Wanner-Sisler: Okay. A couple of years ago I talked to somebody about potentially, you
know, trying to buy that piece of property and that didn't happen, so --
Borup: Yeah. You can find him by turning around.
Wanner-Sisler: Oh. Oh. Okay. Hi. You own the piece directly to the south? Okay.
Borup: Okay. Yeah. You two can get together afterwards.
Wanner-Sisler: Okay. Okay. Very well. Any other questions?
Borup: Questions from the Commission?
Wanner-Sisler: Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Juiy 15, 2004
Page 23 01 67
Borup: Thank you. Do we have anyone else who would like to testify on this
application? Come forward.
Paulson: Good evening, My name is Jim Paulson, I reside at 645 Wickham Fen Way in
Boise and, as just mentioned, I own the property with my father there at 640 West
Ustick and I agree with Wendy's comments, with staff, that it does make sense to have
a stub-in street on that side and I know I would be willing to work with Lisa if that could
be shifted onto our parcel, because I am in favor of what they are doing here, but the
one concern that I have is owning that other parcel with Venable Lane going through,
there is some gray area from the people that are helping me develop our parcels and
because of the neighborhood center we would like to do that as multi-family housing,
either a four-plex, duplex, apartment complexes, so it would be great to have access
through there to get back to the school, so the children don't have to go out onto
Venable Lane and wrap out around. It would make it convenient for them to get back to
that facility. The one question that I have got is because of that gray area, getting back
to Venable, if there is not a stub street on the -- between our parcels and this project,
then, it may land lock ours from being able to go forward somewhat and that we could
not even work with the property to the south of ours to put an additional stub street
down, because of the requirements by ACHD to put additional access roads within a
certain distance of a collector and we don't have the width on our own property to run a
second street in, so I'd love to work with the developer and everybody here to make
sure that we have guaranteed access to the ten acres that we own on the southeast
quarter.
Borup: Is your property size -- are they going to require two -- two entrances?
Paulson: They are not going to require two, but we just have to make sure we can at
least maintain one.
Borup: But you have got access on Venable, don't you?
Paulson: There is a gray area there. We have been trying to fight that a little bit to see
for sure. There is some reason to believe -- some believe we don't. I believe we do.
So, we haven't really pushed that one through the system yet.
Borup: Won't this project kind of maybe clarify that?
Paulson: No, because the access that -- what's happened is there was an individual that
had gone through and tried to claim rights to the eastern boundary of this parcel and --
at least of our parcel. It doesn't impact this particular subdivision, but I know it impacted
ours, and so when that easterly strip of ours is still in dispute, we don't have guaranteed
access to Venable Lane through our property, even though I believe it to be adjacent to
it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 15, 2004
Page 24 01 67
Borup: Then your other concern was access to the school, but not necessarily vehicle
access.
Paulson: Right. Because--
Borup: So, a pathway would accomplish the same thing as far as school access,
wouldn't it?
Paulson: It would. Yes.
Rohm: So, your property is this parcel right here?
Paulson: Yeah. If you can flip back to the map that was just up there. Or the one prior
to that. It would be this parcel -- the parcel that we have is just due north -- let me see if
I can spin around and use that mike.
Borup: That comes off.
Paulson: So, these -- this is the ten acre parcel here with the existing home and so
some question whether our parcels have access to the new road that was just put in
here and because of that road we don't have the distance to be able to put a secondary
access even through this parcel that we don't own. I just want to make sure there is an
access point. So, as long as the Commission is looking at the possibility of putting --
changing that stub street, if that would be stubbed over here on this end, as opposed to
this end, I think that would fit everybody's needs and objectives.
Rohm: What about the parcel to the west? If they put the stub street here, won't this
parcel be land locked?
Paulson: I don't believe so. That would be a question for ACHD, but I don't believe that
it would land lock that other parcel, because there would be sufficient space for the
distance requirements from the street that was just put in to the west for another access
point to go in and from that direction, because -- forgive me for not knowing the exact,
but I believe it has to be 1,000 feet off of this street before you can put another street in
that's serviceable, because this one being deemed a collector and so through anywhere
through this parcel there would still be ample room to meet ACHD's requirements to be
at least 1,000 feet away from another existing collector.
Zaremba: Can you discuss or envision the configuration of your property where you had
access west, instead of north -- turn around and see what I'm doing there. If you were
able to access out, but say the stub street moved to about here, it's not actually on your
property, but the assumption would be that the next property would have some
configuration that would be handy for them to have a stub through your property, would
that be a configuration that would help you or do you have something else in mind?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Juiy 15, 2004
Page 25 01 67
Paulson: I don't have anything exact in mind, just wanted to bring that to everyone's
attention to make sure that we don't end up with a land locked parcel when it's all said
and done.
Zaremba: Okay.
Paulson: Thank you.
Moe: Could we go back to the development map?
Borup: Wendy, is it your understanding that this part of Venable is being developed as
part of this application or do we need clarification from the applicant. Maybe the
engineer could answer that, too.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, Cedar Springs Subdivision is
constructing Venable Lane to Ashton Drive.
Borup: Right.
Kirkpatrick: The half plus 12.
Borup: Half plus 12. Mr. Bailey, maybe you could -- I guess I had some question on -- I
don't know if you can shed any light on what Mr. Paulson said about access to Venable.
Are you familiar with --
Bailey: Yes, sir, I am.
Borup: Okay.
Bailey: Venable Lane --
Borup: Go ahead and state your name, please.
Bailey: Oh. David Bailey, Bailey Engineering, 1117 East Plaza Drive in Eagle.
Borup: Okay.
Bailey: I'm sure you know more of the history of Venable Lane than I do, actually, but
we have done the surveying work out there. Right now there is 29 feet of right of way
on the east side of Venable Lane that goes all the way up. There was some question
as to a strip of ground in there that the previous owner of the Cedar Springs property
had some claim to at some point. Lisa has actually obtained the property that was the
strip of the front that was adjacent to Venable Lane and -- it's right along this area here
and it consists of about one acre. Ada County Highway District is requiring us to
dedicate 25 feet of that, make a total of 54 foot right of way, and we will build curb,
gutter, and sidewalk on our side of the street, on the north end here, so I suspect the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 15, 2004
Page 26 01 67
same is going to happen to the property to the south and if there is some spite strip
there that's preventing them access to their property on that piece, I'm not aware of it.
What I'm showing -- the old -- the old old Venable Lane when it was a private land that
went up there that the maps currently show that as a piece of right of way. So, who has
claim to that I couldn't tell you for sure, but there is a little strip there that's immediately
adjacent to the 29 feet on the east side of Venable that Cedar Springs has dedicated.
Borup: So, is that strip under a different ownership than the bulk of this property?
Bailey: Actually, on the --
Borup: Or is it a different --
Bailey: Actually, on the assessor's map right now it's shown as public right of way, that
little strip.
Borup: It doesn't show a claim to deed to that or anything?
Bailey: Not to my knowledge, no.
Borup: That should probably be the same case to the property to the south.
Bailey: Correct.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: Wasn't it Venable Lane in the last meeting that had the --
Borup: That was on the other side of Ustick.
Zaremba: South of Ustick it's a headache as well.
Newton-Huckabay: Well, but, what, 20 feet of the lane belonged -- or was deeded to the
public use? Is that not the whole north and south?
Borup: No. I think that was just to the south, wasn't it?
Newton-Huckabay: It was just on the south? Oh. Okay.
Borup: Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Bailey? All right. Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you.
Borup: Did we have anyone else to testify on this? Any final comments, Shawn?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
Juiy 15, 2004
Page 27 0167
Nickel: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, Shawn Nickel. I'm glad the neighbor was
here to express that, because I don't want to land lock anybody or keep them from
getting access. I still believe that moving that existing stub street over will provide
property connectivity. However, if you -- to kind of safeguard the neighbor until we can
do some more research on it, if you'd like to make a recommendation to have that
second stub street put in there and, then, by the time we get to City Council we probably
would be able to figure out exactly what the access issue is for that gentleman. Maybe
we can do it that way. I'll leave it up to you. With regard to -- I guess just in conclusion
with regards to this subdivision, I just need to point out that we did take a lot of time and
a lot of redrawing to come to this design that you have in front of you, with the
topography -- we have a main canal that has to be relocated. The school site. The
existing stub streets, as you can see, they are kind of an interesting stub that we were
left with. I think the developer did a good job at -- and the engineer at laying this out
with the open space. I think it's going to be a fine addition to the City of Meridian and I
think with the diversity that you will find in there in the housing types, it's going to be a
nice, compatible addition to the area. So, with that I will answer any further questions
you have.
Borup: Any other questions? I think Mr. Paulson's concerns were two. One, access to
the school site through a -- you know, a walking path or et cetera. Pedestrian access.
And, then, just that he wouldn't be -- that he would have access to Venable. It sounds
like that may have been solved with the -- probably with Cedar Springs going in is what
probably solved that, but --
Nickel: Right.
Borup: But I'm concerned about the pedestrian access also.
Newton-Huckabay: I think you meant if there was a street with sidewalks, get up and --
Borup: Right. But that parcel and this parcel have access through here. If there is a
stub street from this parcel to here, then, they would have access, but with the school
site there, I think the pedestrian access is essential. Otherwise, they are going to be
busing them to go, you know, a few hundred yards. Mr. Bailey.
Bailey: Mr. Chairman, If I could bust in for Shawn here real quick. Mr. Chairman, David
Bailey again. On this we are kind of concerned about putting this thing too close to the
center, because it makes the same problem that we had up here about, you know, how
we get the lot lined up. We would like to keep it to this. This parcel is, actually,
physically now land locked without an access point to it and we think it's more important
that we keep the stub on that site. When we move this over, we do have a common lot
here that's adjacent to this and we have no problem moving over into this area here and
we have, oh, 21 feet there, which we could probably provide a 25-foot landscape
pathway through this area -- that we could provide that and, then, provide the stub
street probably -- I would prefer across from this, but I see the point in this area, so
either of these locations would work fine for us. But in this location, then, we do have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Juiy 15, 2004
Page 28 of 67
access to this parcel down here, which may develop in the future. They have great
access to Venable Lane, I think, in this area here and an additional stub street here I'm
not sure is going to make things a whole lot better in that area. When this parcel
develops they certainly will be required to provide a street to the east there that -- to the
back of that property in that area there, so --
Zaremba: Well, that sort of aligns with the question that I had. If the property to the
southeast has an access to the property to the southwest, then, in addition to your
making a pathway somewhere else, which is an appreciated suggestion, where ever
your stub street goes, if it goes here, and, then, it connects to that, they also will have a
way to get to this school pathway.
Bailey: Correct.
Zaremba: Even if you don't move your footpath. But your suggestion is appreciated.
Borup: Well -- and that's what -- I was thinking the same thing.
Zaremba: Eventually, when there is a road there I believe I feel the same way, as what I
think you're saying, is that your stub street is going to connect to something that goes
east through his property and as long as the Venable Lane connection is fixed, that
should help them.
Borup: It probably gives more flexibility in the design of the other property without
having to work around a pathway.
Hawkins-Clark: Chairman Borup, since staff could not see the suggestion, would it be
possible to point that out on the slide, please?
Borup: On where to move the stub street?
Hawkins-Clark: Right.
Borup: Well, I don't know if we got a specific area. They are saying here.
Bailey: My preference would be to put the stub street across from the alley here, but
the Commission expressed some concern that that might cause a continuous pathway
through this area here. So, I -- we would have to either align it with this street, this
street, or with the alley, and we did discuss those options with the highway district, they
would be fine with either -- any of those three options as far as where we align the stub
street. We would put a bulb cul-de-sac, similar to the northwest corner in this area here
in order to turn the traffic around and move that.
Rohm: If you placed the stub street here, would it not service both east and west
parcels to the south? If you put it here? Because this is the property line between their
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 15, 2004
Page 29 01 67
west parcel over here and the east parcel over here, so if you put this stub street down
here, then, it would, in effect, service both parcels, would it not?
Bailey: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Rohm, I agree with you that it would get closer
to that, but the problem I have with that -- this one here is that it doesn't serve either one
of them very well, because it comes in on the property line and they have got -- like I
was pointing out on at the north end here, we ended up with a stub street right adjacent
to our boundary and you can see what kind of a little mess it made us up in the corner
there and we would end with that same kind of mess in this area here to get around
there. If that's what we need to do, we can certainly do that, I just think it wouldn't serve
either one very well, although it would service both.
Rohm: Thank you. That's a good explanation. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to remind you that if
you do choose to require or recommend the applicant to two stub streets, you will have
to make it a site specific comment. We will have to add that in and staff's still
recommending that you recommend the two stub streets. Strongly.
Rohm: Wendy, is the two including this one out and one to the south?
Kirkpatrick: No. I believe we need --
Rohm: Or two to stub.
Kirkpatrick: No. I believe we need --
Rohm: Or two to the south.
Kirkpatrick: We need one stub to serve -- to serve each parcel to the south.
Rohm: So, one here and one over here. Got you.
Kirkpatrick: Well, depending on how - I mean, you know, we are speculating on how a
future parcel is going to development, but -- having the stub .street come here on the
property line between the two really wouldn't be much different than this stub street.
You know, it depends on how far south it continues, but they just have a lot adjoining
the street, which is how any stub street is. It's not the same as coming in here. This is
coming in at a corner. This is -- well, I guess that's coming in the corner, too.
Newton-Huckabay: Wendy, are you recommending that they leave the one stub street
on the west and put the second one where?
Kirkpatrick: Well, it might actually be preferable to go ahead and move that stub over to
the next street over, which is -- it looks like Anfield, to go ahead and move one stub
there and, then, to do a second stub probably off of Anton Drive would work. But I think
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
July 15. 2004
Page 30 0167
-- I think if you were to move that stub a little bit to the east, you wouldn't have that one
long continuous drive, it may help slow down traffic speeds potentially. But I think the
most important thing is that we have one stub serving each parcel, because they are ten
acre pieces, there is a lot of development in that area, and I see this area as developing
probably pretty quickly.
Borup: So, what was your last statement? It's more important to have one stub per
parcel you said?
Kirkpatrick: Then I -- I think, probably, just the existence of the two stubs is more
important than where they are located, but I'm not a traffic engineer.
Borup: Okay.
Newton-Huckabay: I have to agree with Wendy. I think if those properties on the south
develop, that provides more options for people and you are going to have --
Borup: Well, I'd normally agree with that, too, other than we have one of the property
owners here and this might be an opportunity to have the input on where they would like
it. If we are going to put one, maybe you'd rather have it on the property line between
the two. Mr. Paulson, could you shed -- I mean I don't know if you have got very
specific before on what your preference was, other you don't want to be land locked, but
Paulson: Again, my name is Jim Paulson. My recommendation, for what it's worth,
would be to have me work with the architect and just workout something that's mutually
agreeable there that will meet with staff's recommendation, instead of having to
specifically state exactly which lot and where that would go, if that's a viable option,
because as long as we are trying to gain access and I think that would be workable. If
they are willing to work with us, we are willing to work with them on that.
Borup: But are you thinking that one access in this location would be able to
accommodate both properties?
Paulson: Well, the one thing that I'm familiar with -- there was a subdivision that was
done in Boise called Abram Place and we had to do quarter streets on that and as long
as there was a way to make sure that the street is done per ACHD standards in the long
run, so one person doesn't bear all the burden of doing the street or that it's not a viable
option until both parcels are done. For example, the one recommendation that you folks
were making earlier was having the stub street on that side and that we would have
access to ours when the property to the western portion is completed, then, we wouldn't
be able to do anything with our parcel until whoever whenever decides to work on our --
the adjacent ten acre parcel.
Rohm: And I think that that's what we are trying to avoid.
Meridian Piannlng & Zoning
Juiy 15, 2004
Page 31 0167
Paulson: So, if we can do it in such a way that -- I don't know the logistics of how to
make this happen, but if I can work with staff, work with the developer and the architect
and as along as we can meet the goal and objective of having a stub street, whether it
be partial access or full access, I would be all in favor of that.
Kirkpatrick: And Chairman, Members of the Commission, I just wanted to remind Mr.
Paulson that this hearing we are going to make a recommendation. It's still going to go
to City Council, so we have the period between tonight's hearing and the City Council
hearing to work with you and -- so we still have that period, but I think we probably want
a clear recommendation tonight, maybe Council, so --
Borup: And that's what I was going to say, would that be enough time that -- Mr. Bailey,
do you feel that would be enough time to work with Mr. Paulson before City Council,
maybe, to have something worked out?
Bailey: Yes, sir.
Borup: Okay. It's either that or continue it and let them work out -- okay. Is that enough
direction, Commissioners?
Zaremba: I think so. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Public Hearing on AZ 04-014 and
PP 04-019 and CUP 04-021 be closed.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second to close the hearings. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Rohm: I'm still a little confused, so go ahead.
Borup: Well, do we want a little discussion first? This might be appropriate for a little
discussion.
Zaremba: Well, let's see.
Borup: Well, at least on the preliminary plat.
Zaremba: Yeah. I don't think there is any question on the annexation and zoning. On
the preliminary plat I'm prepared to go with a combination of suggestions, One would
be to move the stub street that is currently at the very southwest over to Anfield and
require an additional one at Anton or a place that is mutually agreed on between this
developer and the property to the south and staff, plus require the connection of Ashby
to Venable.
Rohm: Is this Anton?
Meridian Pianning & Zoning
Juiy 15, 2004
Page 32 0167
Zaremba: That is Anfield and that's where I would move the existing stub street.
Borup: If we added another stub street, why does that one need to be moved?
Zaremba: Well, that's a good question.
Borup: Unless they --
Zaremba: It centers more on the other property, but I'm not that concerned one way or
the other.
Rohm: I kind of like leaving that one where it is and that services this parcel and, then,
put the second stub street off of here, which serves the parcel to the east.
Zaremba: Then, there was a good reason for us to discuss it. I agree with that. That's
not what I would have said, but I have no problem with it.
Borup: So, that would be one. The other try to do a single access that would access
both properties. Or would that --
Zaremba: I would support the idea of having two,
Rohm: If we have a little better feel for when the west parcel was going to develop, this
one stub here would service this parcel very well and these two. parcels would connect
via a stub from west to east, but we don't have any way of knowing when that --
Zaremba: When that would happen.
Rohm: -- when that would occur.
Zaremba: Well -- and not to do the engineering, but in my opinion there is a couple of
lots along this southem boundary that are the larger, plus the applicant has available a
21 foot strip here. If the applicant gave up that 21-foot strip of open space and
squeezed a lot or two by five or ten feet, a road could come through here without
actually losing any lot count.
Rohm: Well -- and, besides that, it would break up that 1 ,OOO-foot block -- street.
Zaremba: Yes, it would.
Moe: I guess, Keith, what I would -- Mr. Chairman, what I would note -- I was somewhat
in favor of going with the single road as well -- stub only, but if you're -- if we were to go
to one single, then, you're moving the stub off the west, then, you're going to have
problems with the two lots that are left over on the west side, so it's better to go ahead
Meridian Planning & Zoning
July 15, 2004
Page 33 0167
and take and put a second stub street in, that way they are not having to deal with those
two lots as well.
Zaremba: That's true. That would make that southwest corner pretty difficult.
Moe: Yeah. So, quite frankly, it's for the developer they are probably better off, in my
opinion, to go ahead with the second stub, as opposed to moving that one on the west,
to just make it a single stub street.
Zaremba: So, all of that discussion is a preliminary plat issue; right?
Borup: Yes.
Zaremba: Okay. I got it.
Borup: And, again, it depends on how it develops. Mr. Paulson had mentioned maybe
multi-family.
Newton-Huckabay: Does that make an extra long block when the next -- is it still the
same the block when this property to the south develops on that straight road?
Borup: No, because it's two -- oh, it could be.
Newton-Huckabay: On the existing stub street.
Borup: No, because they would have a stub street coming into it.
Zaremba: Uh-huh. If it's broken here, then, the people to the south also would have
about an 800-foot block.
Kirkpatrick: Chairman, Members of the Commission, is your reference to McKinley Park
Avenue and if that's extended would we be creating an even longer street?
Newton-Huckabay: That's my question.
Kirkpatrick: I think we would be.
Newton-Huckabay: So, you could end up with a --
Borup: Oh, that one, yes.
Kirkpatrick: So, I think it would be advantageous to have the stub on Anfield to break up
that -- to break up the length of that road, that straightaway.
Newton-Huckabay: Because, then, you could be -- yeah, you're going to limit --
Meridian Planning & Zoning
Juiy 15,2004
Page 340167
Zaremba: The pathway doesn't break up the measurement?
Kirkpatrick: It's not -- it's not breaking up -- I mean that vehicle trip down that road. I
mean it's --
Borup: It's just another lot.
Kirkpatrick: I think maybe technically it breaks it up, but I think so far as like how that
road functions, it's not breaking up that road at all.
Borup: It's all the same block. The pathway doesn't form a new block.
Zaremba: Well, the issue is the same and I was thinking if you connected that alleyway
to a long straightaway -- and you're right, if -- if McKinley Park continues on to a logical
development of the property below, you do have a long raceway there, so moving that
stub street over to Anfield certainly would be a traffic calming measure.
Borup: Okay.
Zaremba: I can go with that. Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council
recommending approval of AZ 04-014, request for annexation and zoning of 30 acres
from RUT to R-8 zone for proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood
Development, Inc., north of West Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road, to include
all staff comments of their memo for the hearing date of July 15th, received by the city
clerk July 12th, 2004.
Moe: Second.
Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to the City Council recommending
approval of PP 04-019, request for preliminary plat approval of 136 single family
residential building lots and 13 common lots on 30 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
proposed Sienna Creek Subdivision by Sagewood Development, Inc" north of West
Ustick Road and east of North Linder Road, to include all of staff comments from their
memo for the hearing date of July 15th, 2004, received by the city clerk July 12th, 2004,
with one change. On page eight I would add a paragraph nine that says the stub street
depicted in the southwest corner that currently shows continuing McKinley Park Avenue
onto the south, that that, instead, be stubbed at Anfield, so that there is a south stub,
continue Anfield Street, that the applicant comply with ACHD's request to connect West
Ashby Court on through to Venable Lane and that in addition there be one more stub
street, which potentially would extend Anton Drive into the property to the south and that
location is subject to discussion between the current applicant, the property owner to
the south that would be impacted by it, and staff. End of motion.