Loading...
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.