Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAug. 5, 2004 P & Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 75 of 108 Item 12: Public Hearing: CUP 04-023 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development for a mixed-use development consisting of 120 multi-family units, 28,660 square feet commercial/office space and 3.43 acres of open space on 10.05 acres in a CoG zone for proposed Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc. - 2935 N. Eagle Road Item 13: Public Hearing: PP 04-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 residential four-plex lots, 7 commercial lots and 8 common lots on 10.05 acres in a CoG zone for proposed Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc. - 2935 N. Eagle Road: Borup: The last -- I think our last item for the evening, Public Hearing CUP 04-023, request for Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a mixed use development, consisting of 120 multi-family units, 28,660 square feet commercial office space, 3.43 acres of open space. This is in a CoG zone for proposed Sadie Creek Subdivision and joining that is Public Hearing PP 04-023, preliminary plat on the same project. I'd like to open both hearings at this time and started with the staff report. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borup: Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: Before staff goes, I would like to make a comment on the agenda there is a typo. The correct file number for Item 13 is PP 04-021. Borup: Okay. So noted. Thank you. And the rest of our paperwork does say that, just the agenda was-- Zaremba: And the description is correct. Everything else is correct. except the file number on the agenda. Borup: Mr. Hood. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, the subject ten acres is located, as you can see on this vicinity map, on the west side of Eagle Road, approximately 900 feet -- or 600 feet south of Ustick Road within Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. This site was recently annexed into the city as part of AZ 03-018, which was processed as the Kissler/Cobbs/Eagy/Ruwe annexation. One of those parties to that application originally withdrew from that application. That is directly to the north of the subject parcel. So, the city limits currently kind of go around and across Eagle Road. The properties to the north and south are currently not within the city boundaries. The subject site is designated as mixed use regional on the Comprehensive Plan land use map and is currently zoned CoG. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 76 of 108 Borup: Could you clarify for me, again, on which of these parcels are already annexed and which ones aren't? Hood: Bruce is -- yeah. That's the one -- Borup: That is not. Hood: That property owner is here this evening and he withdrew -- originally was part of the application, but, yeah, those two parcels there -- Borup: To the north of the -- Hood: -- to the north of the dark black. Yeah. The one directly on the corner. Borup: Between this and Ustick are -- were withdrawn? Hood: Yes. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hood: So, this site, as you can see on this map, the -- I'm sorry, there is no legend with this, but the brown color -- all four corners of the intersection of Ustick and Eagle Road are designated as mixed use regional on the future land use map and, like I said, this is currently zoned CoG. This mixed-use designation is intended to provide for a combination of compatible land uses that are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan. With the annexation and zoning there was a conceptual plan submitted showing how this property may develop. That is something that's not required within the annexation and zoning, but it is something to help this body and the City Council kind of get a feel for the anticipated development of the property. The existing land uses in this area, as you can kind of see from this map, are real similar to another application that was on the agenda this evening. It does still have somewhat of a rural feel to it, although Eagle Road that is adjacent to it and there are 40,000 plus cars a day driving by. There is a single-family home on an agricultural lot. That one that we just previously discussed, it was going to be annexed and withdrawn, that's zoned R-1 in Ada County. To the south is also an agriculturally -- currently used for agricultural purposes and zoned RUT in Ada County. To the east is the Kissler part of that annexation, currently zoned CoG in the city. To the west are single-family homes in Carol Subdivision. About half of those homes have been annexed and hooked up to sewer and water. The other half are waiting -- when those homes are sold they hook up to sewer and water and are annexed into the city. So, it's about 50-50 right now the last time I checked. There is an existing single family home, as you can see on this, located near Eagle Road, and some outbuildings that the applicant is proposing to remove. The submitted preliminary plat proposed to subdivide the existing ten-acre lot into 30 multi- family residential lots, seven commercial lots, and six common lots. The applicant is proposing to construct a public street access off of Eagle Road located near the south property line. The applicant is proposing two public street stubs, one to the north and Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 77 of 108 one to the south. You can see the -- thank you, Bruce -- the public street coming in and, then, T'ing to the north and south. Access to the multi-family developments is provided by the access drives on the western approximately three quarters of the site. Access is provided to the multi-family units via drive aisles. And so a majority of those lots do not have frontage on a public street, but they all do have access to that common drive aisle. The submitted Conditional Use Permit requested detailed approval for the 30 multi-family buildings, each containing one four-plex structure, for a total of 120 units on about seven acres of the ten acres. The site plan also shows a conceptual layout that includes seven commercial office buildings on the remaining about three acres near Eagle Road. Each use or building within this conceptual area, which is Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, on the preliminary plat, will be required to obtain detailed CUP approval prior to construction. So, right now we don't have any elevations or uses that are proposed for that approximately three acres and all of those buildings will have to come back in for Public Hearing. The applicant did not request any deviations from the standard dimensional standards in Titles 11 and 12 of city code. However, there are some -- some of the requirements that have not been addressed according to code, specifically land use buffers and I'll touch on that in just a moment. The applicant is proposing to construct picnic tables and a volleyball court, a basketball court, and tot lots as amenities for the PD. Here is a floor plan for the multi-family buildings. They are upstairs-downstairs units. Each unit accesses from a separate side, all four sides. I don't want to rush through this, but it is late at night, so I'm going to kind of breeze through the rest of the presentation and hit on some of the outstanding issues. Here are the floor plans. I'll let the applicant talk a little bit more about that. This is the conceptual site plan approved with the annexation and zoning of this site. I do want to just stop here for a second and -- if I could use that, Bruce. The subject site is in this location here. Carol Subdivision would be here. This shows a buffer, transitional use, multi-family residential, commercial office area. Just pointing that out there, that's pretty close -- this line isn't exact. The multi-family line comes somewhere in area. It is conceptual. I just want to show the cross-access, cross-access stub is showing here, a public street stub, another cross-access point showing here to the north, one to the south here, and one to the south there. So, I won't dwell on that too much, but just some of the findings made in the staff report was based on this conceptual layout for the entire annexed area. Now, some of the outstanding issues, access to Eagle Road, I guess, is going to be probably the biggest one for the applicant and access in general to Eagle Road I imagine a lot of the people here tonight will comment on as well. As noted in the staff report, site specific condition number two on page ten, staff would like to restrict this access point to be right-in, right-out only, and temporary. Once access is provided to the site via Ruwe Way to Ustick Road, which, again, there is only that one property, so when that property develops, access to Ustick Road is available, and this access to Eagle would go away. The applicant is definitely dressing this up as a main entrance into the site, with landscape islands and that type of thing, so just -- that one's kind of a point of discussion, but staff hasn't included a condition. Did get a correspondence from ITD on Monday. They have not acted on this application yet. The applicant has told me they have a submittal in for an access permit. ITD in their letter says they don't have one. Two different departments. They did send -- their comments, though, did talk about access to the type four roadway. You can review those. They Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 780f108 should be in your packet. It basically says, you know, unless you have a half mile of frontage, if you -- you know, access will be looked at the state highway on a type four roadway on a case-by-case basis and be temporary only, when a frontage road or other means to public streets are provided. Some of the reasons for staff's recommending of the right-in and right-out and temporary are in the staff report, so I won't belabor that anymore. You did receive an e-mail as well from Walt Williams about access. I just want to make sure that that's in the packet and on the record, his concerns about access to the highway. And I would like the applicant to also address in their presentation the partial right of way that occasioned -- I talked with the applicant out in the hallway before this hearing and it's hard to see on here, but the actual property lines of the subject site goes about 12 feet south of the center line of the roadway. So, approximately three-quarters of the roadway is on their site, with the remaining quarter being on the southern property line or the southern property. So, the remainder portion of that roadway would either have to be constructed or dedicated or something like that. So, again, I just wanted the applicant to clarify exactly how that's going to happen and, then, right in this location it actually goes below that and kind of dips up and across the center line, actually, of the roadway. So, they wouldn't be able to -- without the southern property owners approval, construct that portion of the roadway. So, just some clarification. And in keeping with that access theme, site specific condition number four on page ten, again, there is only -- currently only one access proposed. The Meridian police department is opposed to any development west of this public street until there is a secondary access into this site. If this entrance is right-in, right-out only, and they are coming here, it can be very difficult to service this site, so they are going to restrict that to development of this side, which leaves I think probably about 12 units -- I forget how many are actually in there. Tiling ditches, site specific number seven, page 11, the applicant did not originally request to leave the irrigation ditch on the southern part of this property open. I haven't seen any plans. I believe the applicant has a drawing or is going to address how this irrigation ditch is going to be dressed up to be sort of an amenity. The City Council will need to approve any waivers of the standard requirement to not tile irrigation ditches, laterals, or canals. Landscaping. I did make a requirement for an additional five-foot landscape buffer along this driveway. It kind of makes this loop roadway, which is a drive aisle 25 feet wide between the back of stalls with parking for each of the units on the front side and, then, loops around primarily for the fire department, but there are some parking as well here for this unit. This is shown right up to the property line here. Staff requested a five-foot wide landscape buffer. Code requires five feet between all drive aisles, parking lanes, et cetera, edge of property lines. What should have happened -- and this is the larger screw-up on my part, is a landscape buffer between land uses. They are providing a 30-foot wide landscape buffer abutting the single-family residences to the west. I forgot, this guy is a single family residence still, he is not zoned commercial, he did not get annexed into the city and staff is requesting that this Commission require the applicant to provide the full 20- foot wide buffer between all the structures and the drive aisles along this entire property line. Some of them, as you can see, there is some common open area, you don't really run into problems until you get here. This building -- some of them actually go down to five, six, seven feet to the property line, so I'll let the applicant address that. Also these two roadways right here I believe show less than the 20-foot on the southern property Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 79 of 108 line. The rest of it's a roadway and that would not be applicable. I do want to apologize to the Commission for missing that part of the code and to the applicant and to the property owner to the north, but I did want to make that a point. These buildings here, since they will be required to come back in for future CUP approval and, then, certificate of zoning compliance approval, that landscape buffer can be addressed at that time. If this parcel has developed with commercial uses, that buffer will not be as wide. If this building comes in and this is still a single family residence, they will be required to put a 25-foot wide landscape buffer there, so -- but, again, that will be addressed at the time of further development of the commercial area. The amenities and open space, I believe, are the last thing I want to talk about. In the staff report I did make note that there were no amenities shown on the plan. There are some common areas shown and the applicant in their letter says -- you know, again, stated what type of amenities, but I did want the application to further clarify how those amenities will layout on the site. That's site-specific condition number six on page 19. The applicant did submit calculations on open space and staff believes that the open space requirement per city code is being met, so the first sentence of site specific condition number five on page 19 can be deleted. It's about 12 percent of this site is going to be open space. That's it for staff's concerns. I did just, again, want to go on the record; we did receive a correspondence from ITD on August 2nd regarding interim access and their policies. Also, a letter from Greg Eagy, dated August 4th. I believe the Commission should have both of those correspondences and attachments for the ITD letter. Just briefly, some of the things that were brought up by a neighbor in a phone call and an adjacent neighbor came in and talked with me the other day. Public street stubs to the north and south and the location thereof, staff is -- this is a note in the staff report, but this seems to be an adequate location -- in fact, a pretty good location for a stub street, it can meander in and around based on what they want to do here, so I don't think this binds this property owner to -- in fact, we want to see it probably jog a little bit, so you don't have a straight raceway. And, then, the access drives here. The applicant has shown the extension of both drive aisles in the commercial area, along with the sidewalk adjacent to those. Fencing was also a concern. The applicant did propose originally the perimeter fencing. There is a recommendation there for temporary construction fencing if no permanent fencing is installed. So, those are some of the concerns, aside from the use of multi- family and commercial that I just wanted to point out, staff is recommending approval of the applications with the conditions outlined in the staff report and the changes that I have just requested. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Borup: Questions from any of the Commissioners? Craig I was -- go ahead. You were too slow. Zaremba: I was. I don't always have to be first. I try and give other people the opportunity to talk. Borup: I was interested in the concept plan. I think when this application -- the annexation was before us there was a lot of discussion about a concept plan, but I don't think this Commission ever saw one, so I take it that was developed after it left this Commission, before it made it to City Council; is that correct? Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 80 of 108 Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that's my understanding, too. Brad Hawkins-Clark was, actually, the planner on this, but there was not a conceptual plan submitted with the original application. Like I said, it's not a requirement of an annexation application, but -- Borup: It was very strongly recommended. Hood: It's strongly suggested by staff and the City Council. Really, they don't like to give just blanket approvals for commercial zones without kind of knowing -- Borup: I think we made that as an understanding when it left this Commission. Hood: Yes. Borup: But one of the things I remember there was a lot of discussion on and I may be remembering not completely, but that we are talking about an L-O zone to the west. Hood: There was -- and I don't have the minutes and wasn't privy to the City Council meeting, but that's always a -- when you have single family homes adjacent to mixed use developments, what is a good transitional use between those higher intense uses. Some of the path decisions -- you know, landscaping is always nice. A transitional use such as storage units, which the applicant is proposing there as a transitional use, they have storage units, individual storage units for the tenants, so indoor storage transitioning into that multi-family. So, there is a landscape buffer, that transitional use, which is a low intense use and, then, your more intense multi-family with the higher -- higher and highest intense, other than industrial commercial uses near Eagle Road. So, I guess based on past applications that have been approved by the Council, storage units, landscaping, are those type of things that kind of get you to those transitioning, other higher intense uses, so -- Borup: I think they left the meeting with -- understanding what -- what the preference was at that time, but also I think some of them made the statement they understood that, but if anything else was proposed, that would be seeing it, so this is it it looks like. One other -- one final question. The Eagle Road study that ITD made reference to, was that the existing one from several years ago or are they working on a new one? Hood: No. There is a new one in the works right now. It has not formally been adopted and it's still in draft form. Borup: They threw the old one out the door, then, or -- Hood: I'll let Anna speak to that. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the Commission, for about the last year ITD has been working on an Eagle Road corridor study. They have done a number of public Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 81 of 108 open houses and had quite a bit of public participation. They hired an out-of-town consultant -- well, I guess he's actually in town. Kiddleson.But they did some -- they did do a draft document, they have been taking comments in on that and on Wednesday they will do the presentation of the draft document to the public agencies and, then, the open house is on -- I'm sorry. The public presentation to -- the presentation to the public agencies is Tuesday and the open house for the public is Wednesday. So, they are moving forward with more than an initial draft document at this point, but -- and that section does have a -- it calls for a landscaped median and then -- some of the key points are a landscape median, a ten foot pathway, and pedestrian path separated from the street and there is, actually, a bike path on the street, too, I believe. Borup: Okay. So, they have made some changes from their initial study, then? Thank you. That's what I was -- Commissioner Zaremba, you had -- Zaremba: Yes. Actually, on that subject of access to Eagle Road, in anticipation of ITD wanting to limit access to it, I agree with staff's proposal that any current access be temporary, but I would add to it a question, also anticipating that some day Eagle Road would be a transit corridor, as well as a vehicle corridor, at the location where we are saying there is a temporary vehicle access, which would go away as soon as there are other ways to access this property, could we ask that at th.at location there be a permanent pedestrian access? I think the sidewalks along Eagle Road are going to be desirable to be pedestrian access. Hood: I believe so, the way I see this playing out. I mean you're going to have right of way for the street dedicated all the way to Eagle Road, so you will have a public street -- unless it's vacated and that would be back before the City Council and they would actually have to vacate any right of way. But the right of way will be there. I mean you will have 54 feet plus for any walkway and maybe even a bus pull out. Now, it's 55 miles an hour and ITD probably isn't going to lower the speed limit there, but you will have, you know, a 50-foot corridor that will be, you know, paved out there and look like a public street, except for barricades or however ACHD is going to, you know, shut -- or ITD will shut that access off. So, that should be preserved. Now, the application or a future abutting property owner could apply to have that vacated, but we could make that a condition that, you know, it stays in perpetuity and that -- you know, that it -- Zaremba: At least as a pedestrian access. Hood: For a pedestrian access. Zaremba: Yes. Hood: And the sidewalk will tie in. I mean it will be stubbed to Eagle Road. So, I think that's -- yeah. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 82 of 108 Zaremba: Okay. And, then, one other comment. On page 12, your paragraph nine, about fencing, thank you very much. That's it. Borup: Questions from the other Commissioners? Okay. Newton-Huckabay: I just question the prudence of design, putting your -- when this Sadie Creek Drive is shut off and you access through Ruwe Way, you're going to have to drive through what will be residential to get to your office. Hood: I will -- I would like the applicant to further clarify this, but the first phase is going to be a middle multi-family section. Access to the office, you know, may be temporarily -- you know, yeah, there is going to be stub streets -- you will have a frontage road, it's not, actually, going to be a dedicated roadway, but there will be cross-access amongst the parcels, so you -- from Ustick Road you will have to come down approximately 600 feet, but you aren't driving through residential. The anticipated areas near Eagle Road up to Ustick will be commercial as well, so you will actually be going through office commercial, down to this -- you could go through residences to get there. Newton-Huckabay: It would be one really long parking lot. Hood: Well, there are buildings along and, then, your parking and, then, more buildings, then, more parking. So, without seeing a design for the parcel to the north, if they stick with the flavor here, you have buildings that you see as you're driving down Eagle Road and, then, aback-age road -- a road behind those buildings that ties all those properties together. Borup: But right now it sounds like the property to the north wants to stay residential. Hood: It is currently residential. Borup: Well, if they want a buffer, so that would indicate that they maybe want to be residential for the next one hundred years. Or there would be maybe some cooperation on development. Okay. Okay. Anything else from the Commissioners? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Unger: Mr. Chair, Commission Members, my name is Bob Unger, my address is 6104 North Gary Lane, Boise, Idaho. 83714. And I represent FOLIO, Inc., who is the developer on this project. Excuse me. First of all, I want to say that I think staff has done a great job of reviewing the project and has been really helpful in our final design of what you're seeing this evening. We also appreciate the recommendation of approval and their conditions. Just very briefly, because, once again, I think we all are kind of tired and we -- as staff has said, we are proposing 30 four-plex buildings and seven commercial lots, which will be developed at a later date. Based upon staff's review of the project and their recommendations, we would be reducing that from 30 four-plex buildings to 29 four-plex buildings, which is actually we would -- well, we can show it up here. We would be eliminating this building right here. Which would also Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 83 of 108 increase the open space area here by about 16,000 square feet. In reviewing the project, when the property was annexed this past spring, there was a development agreement that was signed with Mrs. Ruwe and the city, specifically identifying the type of development that would occur on the property, has staff showed you earlier. That conceptual plan was rather vague and empty. What we have put together here pretty well follows and complies with that development agreement. Met with staff prior to going forward with this project. They gave us a copy of the development agreement and also helped review and look at the streets, location of the streets, particularly the north-south street that ultimately would connect to Ustick Road. So, we feel that what we have put together here is totally -- is totally in compliance with the development agreement that was signed this -- this spring. Also, as staff said, we do want to phase the project. This would be our first phase. Our second phase would be here. And the commercial development would occur at the last stage. We anticipate probably two to three years before that would go forward. As far as the roads, once again, these will be ACHD roads. Rather uniquely, they have required that we build these roads not to residential standards or the typical standards that we see throughout the valley of 29 foot back of curb roads, they have required us to increase these to 40 feet width of pavement in a 54-foot right of way, which is -- that's a wide wide street. Very very wide street. Which we really don't have a problem with that and I'll kind of get into that as we go on down the road here. We have requested from ITD a full access -- temporary full access until such time as North Ruwe Way, which is this road, is extended to Ustick Road and at that time dropping that into a right-in, right-out access. We feel that our access to Eagle Road is imperative to this project, particularly at this point in time, since it's the only access that we have. As far as -- if that access is taken away once the north-south road to Ustick is extended, certainly we are not going to fight anybody over providing pedestrian access there. I mean that's just logical. Okay? And, like staff said, we are going right of way to right of way, so, it will be within ACHD's right of way and ITD's right of way. And, once again, the street -- the north-south street, that's -- the location of that is pretty close to where staff had recommended the -- to be located and certainly as it goes to the north when and if the property to the north develops, you know, they can meander that and probably is a good idea. Utilities are available to the site. We may have to do some extending to there, but sewer is available. In fact, it's available from both directions along Eagle Road. And the city just completed a water extension right down in front of the property within the past month or two. And all other utilities are there and available to us. What I would like to do is go to this -- our first design here in the landscaping was only 28 feet -- actually, it was supposed to have been 30 feet. Staff's informed us it needs to be 35 feet. We don't have a problem with that, so no problem in making that a 35-foot landscape strip there. To the west we have proposed a 30 foot landscape strip all the way along through here and that was a part of the development agreement that that would occur. So, we put that in there. And also, as staff reviewed, we have 24 garage slash storage spaces -- buildings, actually. It's one building, single story, located right there to add to the buffer from the homeowners to the west of the project. Along the north -- I guess we made the same assumption that staff made, since there is a single family residence here and all the rest of this property is open field, we did not put in a 20-foot landscape buffer along this portion of the development, in that the possibilities -- we feel the probability that the property to the Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page 84 of 108 north is -- some day is going to develop and we would think similar to what we have here in that your Comprehensive Plan calls for a mixed use in that area. We are asking for a reduction from the 20-foot to a ten foot landscape strip all along here. We will be able to move this fire lane over with the loss -- you know, with removing this building, we have sufficient room to move this fire lane over to accommodate a ten foot landscape strip there. These commercial properties along here, of course, won't develop for two to three years and what we have got in our final landscape plan down here is a very dense planting of trees, shrubs, et cetera, specifically along where the -- where this residence exists today. So, that is one thing that we would be asking for, a reduction in that 20- foot width requirement. Can definitely go ten, but 20 is probably going to -- 20 is going to put us in a situation where we would probably lose one, two, possibly three buildings in the project. Even if I try to rotate some of these buildings, I don't think I can get them all squared away in there and we are trying to keep as much open space and landscape area along here, so that we have a nice appearance coming into the project and up in through here. Excuse me. This -- all this area up through here would still be landscaped very nicely. In addition, we are also proposing to put vinyl fencing along the northern boundary of the property and along the western boundary of the property and, actually, we would bring it right on down to -- to the street section here. Of course, this all being right of way, it really wouldn't be advantageous to try to fence right next to the sidewalk and I don't believe that the gentleman that owns the property to the south has a real concern about our fencing. We have met with him on a couple of occasions, reviewing our project, and it's quite likely that he's going to develop his project very very similar to ours, with -- even with the driveways of the commercial areas aligning with what we are proposing now. Excuse me. As far as parking, we have provided two parking spaces per dwelling unit, and for each dwelling unit there is one covered space. And, once again, I have talked about the garage slant storage units over here. Open space. Let's see. If I -- Craig, could you put that one up for me, please? Okay. This is a revised plan that we brought in this evening and as you can see, we have eliminated this building here and what we are proposing as far as amenities and open space, with this additional open space, with the loss of this building, we are in excess of 54,000 square feet of open space, which is about one and a third acres, a little bit better than. The amenities that we are proposing, we have a volleyball court here, we have a large tot lot here, which would have swings, monkey bars, you know, those type of -- that type of equipment. Also, in this open space area up here that would be more in the area of a playground area. We want to leave that grassy, so that the kids can go out there, they can throw the -- it's large enough where you can go out and throw the football, it's large enough you can go out and kick the soccer ball around and things like that. But we -- it's designated as an open space, but we also want to designate it as an amenity for use for the kids and even adults, they can go out there and throw the football and kick a soccer ball around. Some of the other amenities -- and it's hard to see on this. These little dots we have got in here are picnic tables and we are providing one picnic table for every two buildings that can be used by residents. Also, in this open space area here we are showing a horseshoe pit. Some people enjoy it. So, it's something we can put in to accommodate that. We had discussed with staff about putting in a basketball court. We are not sure where we would put a basketball court and it's more asphalt in an area where we have already got all the parking and driveways and an awful lot of Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 850f108 asphalt, so we are not sure whether we would really be able to put a basketball court in or, actually, whether we would want to. I guess it would be up to the Commission. If you really want us to put one in there and eliminate some more green and put down some asphalt. Let's see. The irrigation ditch. There is a very small irrigation ditch, comes in right about in this location right here. It's approximately two feet wide and approximately a foot to a foot and a half deep. It does provide water to the west. What we would like to do -- and, Craig, can you move -- can you get this up a little higher, so they can see this? There you go. Thank you. What we would like to do is we'd like to turn it into an amenity, something where we can take it to a five-to-one slope on the banks, we will put river rock here on the bottom of it, the depth would be a foot and a half. The easement that we would provide, there would be a ten foot easement and, you know, we could put some plantings along the -- right along the street, between the street and the ditch itself, because we would just locate it right along the edge of the street and run it on over there. It provides a very nice amenity. It's not really a hazardous attraction to children, because it's not -- it's not really deep, it's not fast running, so it really becomes somewhat of an amenity that can be not only appreciated by the folks within this development, but also the folks in this development when that does occur. We just think it's a nice thing -- a nice thing to see. It just looks like a little meandering-type creek and, of course, goes along with the theme of our project, which is Sadie Creek. So, we would like to see that happen, if - if the Commission and the City Council would consider that. Now, I wanted to very briefly go over our building materials. What we are -- the building materials on this project, we have got -- we have got a hard board cottage lap siding and, then, we have a hard board one-by-two trim and also one-by-four hard board trim. The shingles are 20-year asphalt shingles. We have been looking at vinyl windows and metal exterior doors. We have some photos of buildings. Actually, this was put together for us by the paint company, because if you notice it's the same picture, we have got -- we have got the same wide view all over the place. But we are proposing that the -- we have a variety of colors within the project. so that -- so that it doesn't look institutional and if I could I would like to just pass these out to the Commission and -- this is a copy of the bottom center. And the copies came a little bit dark. So, it really gives you a good view of what these buildings really will look like. They are not your standard box four-plex buildings. They are very very unique. In fact, if you look -- you know, if you really look at them, they do look like a large residential - single-family residential home. We are very fortunate in that the company that builds these structures for us has an exclusive to these and they are very very nice buildings and really reflects the type of development that we are trying to put together here. And as far as -- like I said, you know, we are trying to mix up the colors and really make this project look more like a single-family development than a multi-family development. Okay. Let me go to one more thing. We wanted to try to give the Commission and the neighbors who live to the west an idea of what this is going look like from their homes. And we have three homes that are adjacent to the project, we have this residence here, it's a two story home, we have this one here, which is a single story, and this one as a two story. So, if you look at this view right here, this view is standing approximately 50 feet from the property line on this property at a height of about six feet. And this is what they would see from the project. As far as the structures, they are going to see a little bit of two-story structure right in here. The Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5.2004 Page 86 of 108 properties that are two story, that would be these two different views, and those are done at 16 feet, as if these residents here and here were upstairs in their bedroom, whatever the case, looking out the window. And it does reflect the -- an extensive vegetation, the fence, the vinyl fence in both areas. So, we are really trying to make some huge efforts here to minimize the impact of our project upon their homes. So, one of the things that we really really want people to understand -- and it's been very hard for us. This is not the first one of these projects we have done. You talk about four- plexes, you talk about multi-family and immediately everybody sees the boxes and the rows of buildings. That's not what we are about. That's not what we are trying to build here. We have extensive landscaping, we have extensive open space, and a very unique building design. I wanted to also let you folks know that we have a -- along with the project there will be a property owner's association. There will be very very very strict CC&Rs, which will also include from maintenance of the landscaping, the open space, buildings, and even the drainage of the parking areas. In addition to that, there will be one property management company that will manage the entire project, instead of individual property management companies. Although these buildings are all on separate lots and can be owned separately, that's why we feel it's very important that it's all managed by one management company who reviews -- even screens the applicants or the renters who might want to live there. I submitted a -- August 3rd I submitted a review or a comment sheet, as requested by staff, addressing the site specific and standard conditions of approval within the staff report. As far as the preliminary plat is concerned, we concur with staff's recommendations, with the exception of conditions number two, four and seven. Seven being the tiling of the irrigation ditch and I think I have explained what we would like to do there and why we would like to do that. I believe you folks have this comment sheet in your packets. Condition number two, which -- on the preliminary plat, which discusses the access to Eagle Road and right-in, right-out movements only and, then, the actual elimination of that access in the future. As I stated in here, the Eagle Road access is very imperative to the development of this property and the surrounding properties, because you have to understand not only is this access for our project, this access will serve the property to the south, properties to the north, we are looking at a total of better than 40 acres and this one individual access would be the only access to Eagle Road for the entire 40 acres. You know, we have -- we have submitted the application to lTD. Up to this point ITD has not done very well in following their policies. We feel very hopeful that we will get access from ITD in that they have allowed accesses all up and down Eagle Road, we have all seen it, we all know it's happened and I think they are going to be very hard pressed to deny our access. Or they can buy the property, I guess. Whatever they would like to do. So, we really feel that the access there is very important. You know, once again, we are providing the first of the stub streets to Ustick. These two stub driveways should make it all the way to Ustick, when and if the properties to the north develop. Condition number four, really -- I have a real concern with holding off on the development of this portion of the project until this road goes through. I'm not -- I'm not sure why that's a recommendation from the police department. I tried to contact the officer who responded on these, on this project, left numerous messages, have not gotten a response from him. I've even talked to staff, they are not even quite sure his basis for recommending that only this phase be allowed to develop prior to the connection of this Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5.2004 Page 87 of 108 road to Ustick. I could understand, possibly, if he thought that these streets were narrow streets, and an accident could block the access to the back portion of the property. I could understand that. These are not narrow streets, these are very wide streets. And also we have a loop to get around there and if there was blockage here, emergency services could still get around through there. If there was some sort of blockage in this area, we still have loops to get around. We also have the same thing in the commercial. About the only place we don't have connections to get around this would be here and here. I met with Joe Silva with the fire department. He's the one that required the fire accesses here and here. We were more than glad to oblige that. At no time had he ever -- has he ever commented to us that he would only -- you know, only allow this portion to develop. So, we would ask that that condition be removed. It makes it very hard to develop a piece of property when the property to the north can hold us up forever if he wants to. And I believe we have 13 units -- 13 units in there, would make it very -- financially very difficult for us to do the project and go forward and provide this housing, which, according to the development agreement and the annexation and the Comp Plan, this type of development is really slated for this area. And, essentially, under the conditional use, site specific conditions, I think we have the same issues on condition 12 and conditions one and two that we have on the preliminary plat, so I'm not going to reiterate those to you. We think we have got a really good project here, we have got a project that is in compliance -- pretty close to being in compliance with city code, with the exception of the three items we have discussed. We certainly have agreed to make some modifications that staff has recommended. This project is going to provide, you know, needed housing and also some needed commercial as recognized by the city when the city annexed the property. At this point I thank you for your time. We request your approval and I'll stand for any questions that you might have. Borup: Mr. Unger, do you have -- has ITD indicated when they would have their recommendation? Unger: They haven't. And I have a sneaking suspicion, since they are looking at changing their policies, they might be dragging their feet on this a little bit. I am going to contact -- I did not -- I was not aware that there was a meeting next week, a public -- or open meeting. I am going to contact them tomorrow and get some sort of a schedule out of them and kind of push a little bit more. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Hood: Mr. Chair? While the applicant's up there, I have a question for him. In the staff report, site specific number six under the Conditional Use Permit, I asked to clarify the private usable open space and you and I didn't talk about this a lot, but multi-family developments do require 100 square feet of private usable open space, so if you could just present to the Commission any facts you have on that. Thank you. Unger: Mr. Chair, Commissioners. Right. We did talk about that. Each unit -- each one of these units will have a ten-by-ten patio. The initial design on these, actually, was Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 88 of 108 eight-by-six, but we will increase those to ten by ten, which will give us a hundred square feet per unit. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Questions from the Commission at this point? Zaremba: Yes. Just discussing this area here, I appreciate your willingness to add the landscape buffer that the staff is requesting, but not to plan when or if the project to the north might occur, I could see some sense in this being almost a mirror image of it and this being a cross access, having a landscape buffer would kind of prevent that. Do you have any vision of what you think might occur to the north? Unger: Mr. Chair, we don't. We haven't -- we really haven't had an opportunity to sit down with the property owner to the north and I believe we do -- we have tried to -- you know, we have tried to get together with him and scheduling. He's out of town or we are not available, things like that. So, we really don't know what his plans are for his property. Certainly, I -- I, myself, would think if that property develops it would develop similar to this and I agree with you in that that would make a good cross-access. I guess my response to the -- even a five-foot landscape strip, if that property were to develop and a cross-access were to -- you know, to happen, I think we could remove the landscaping and make it happen. Borup: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Zaremba, just a little bit of -- I mean staff thought about that as well. Just with the public street stub here, it's not -- it's alocal street, so access there, it's not adjacent properties if they do develop similarly, will not have to get out on a major arterial to get there and there is also the stub in the commercial area, so although there wouldn't be, you know, direct access here, there is a stub here and cross-access there. I don't remember the exact dimension between these two, but it's not a terribly long distance. That's why we wanted a landscape buffer and, then, another cross-access or another stub to the north wasn't required or really even analyzed that in the staff report, so -- Borup: Thank you. Zaremba: Okay. Then another question that I think staff raised. It appears that some of this roadway, actually, is across your property line and perhaps even the canal that you were talking about making a decorative feature. It sounds like it's across the property line. Are you making agreements with the owner to the south? Unger: Mr. Chair, yes, we have. We have been talking with the property owner to the south. In fact, we have a couple of thoughts and ideas that we are discussing. At bare minimum we would get an easement from the property owner to go ahead and build the entire width of the street, including sidewalks, and the small ditch that runs down through there. And, then, at such time he develops his property or his property gets developed, then, the easement would actually become a dedicated part of the right of Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5.2004 Page 89 of 108 way. Really, he can't dedicate that strip of right of way. because it would -- and staff and I kind of discussed this -- it would probably constitute an illegal split of his property. But if he were to grant an easement, then, I know ACHD would go along with that, then, we would be able to go ahead and build the whole street all the way in and I think that's advantageous for everybody. Borup: Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Moe: Just clarification. You were just talking about in regards to access and whatnot and you brought up a five-foot buffer. You're requesting a change to a ten-foot; correct? As opposed to the 20? Unger: Mr. Chair, that is correct. I think staff -- Staff had commented and I guess where we got tied up with the five foot, staff had commented that we had to have a minimum of five-foot across there next to the aisles, but, then, he also needed -- said we needed to have the ten foot, so that would be a ten foot strip there. I apologize. Hood: Actually, code would require 20-foot. The applicant's requesting that be reduced to ten. Moe: Yeah. Understand. Thank you. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, questions? We have had a lot of people that have been very patient here and we want to make that available to them, but I'd like to know the feelings -- if any of you are a mind that we would be forwarding this on without the report from ITD or is that something we'd like to wait for? Zaremba: I would say the way staff has stated it we are covered. On page ten, under site specific conditions, preliminary plat, paragraph two, the last sentence is: Place a note on the face of the final plat stating that unless otherwise approved by the city and ITD, permanent access to Eagle Road is prohibited, which leaves the opportunity for ITD to later make that approval and the city, then, would have to either validate the approval or not, but the option for ITD to report later, I believe, is already covered. I wouldn't wait for it, necessarily. Borup: Okay. Just trying to get a feel for that. Let's open the meeting for -- or the rest of this meeting for public testimony. Who would like to come forward first? Thurston: Chairman Borup, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff members, my name is David Thurston. I live at 1470 Leslie Way in Meridian. My home is the one that's -- view C as it was explained by Mr. Unger. That's my home. I represent the homeowners living in the Carol Subdivision and you see all of the homeowners here. There were more that were here, unfortunately, the time -- the lateness of the time a lot of them have gone home. The homeowners are here this evening, because we have more than a casual interest in the proposed Sadie Creek Subdivision. The number of homeowners in attendance is an indication of our interest Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5.2004 Page 90 of 108 and our willingness to participate in the process of developing the land, which lies adjacent to Carol Subdivision. We are here to express our opposition to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a planned development and opposition to approval of preliminary plat, which has been submitted by the developer. The homeowners have met to review the developer's application and the staff report. Based upon our meetings and many discussions, we have put together a letter, which outlines the issues that relate to our opposition. We tried to get organized, as suggested by the Commission, and I think we have done that. A letter has been circulated to every single homeowner that we could contact in the short time that we had the information we did and I have a sample of that letter I'd like to distribute to all the Commissioners and here is a folder of approximately 60 letters that have been signed by the homeowners in the Carol Subdivision. I'd like to present that to you also. Borup: You're submitting these as permanent testimony; is that correct? Thurston: Yes, we are. Every homeowner that has been contacted and presented with this letter has signed it willingly and to express their opposition to this planned development. To indulge the Commission, I'd like to discuss the issues that are represented here and the issues that result in our opposition to the development. First of all is the lack of transition from low-density residential dwellings to a medium or high- density multi-family dwellings. The Carol Subdivision is comprised of homes that sit on one acre of ground each. There is no transition from this one-acre dwelling to what is proposed by the applicant of 15 dwellings per acre. In the meeting of the annexation and rezoning, which Chairman Borup recalled, there were homeowners present there and we talked about the need for a transition and it was suggested by the Commission that there be transition from low density residential into light commercial and we agreed that would be a good transition. That would probably take care of our concerns as far as transition. But to put in this many multi-family units right next to a subdivision which is already established of one acre per dwelling, it just does not seem to be a good thing to do for the subdivision that's already there. We propose -- we'd like to see a transition of low density adjacent to the property to the west. The reason why we think this is so important is because, as explained by the developer, whatever is done here is probably going to be done throughout the property on the south and that's why all of the homeowners have signed this letter of opposition is because they know that they will have these multi-family dwellings also throughout the entire southern property. It has been indicated by Mr. Unger that there is already discussions on that and that that's probably what's going to happen. So, we are concerned about having that high density per acre sitting right next to our low-density residential homes. So, that's our first concern. The second concern has been touched upon. It's the public street access via Eagle Road. We believe that this will result in a huge increase of traffic through the Leslie - to the Carol Subdivision via the Leslie way. The reason why is the staff has recommended to be a temporary access to Eagle Road with right turn only and if we can -- Canning: Sir, there should be a laser pointer up on the podium for your use, too. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page910f108 Thurston: Okay. If the temporary access to Eagle Road is established, that means any vehicle that's here in this -- coming out this exit -- exit right here, will be forced to turn right. The only way they can go to the north, to the east, or to the west is to get to Ustick Road and what the vehicles will do is they will come out, they'll turn and they'll go right through Leslie Way. That's the only way they can get through to Ustick without a permanent access to Ustick, They will have to go through Leslie Way. It's already been noted in the staff report there is estimated to be 1,550 vehicles that would be coming out of this Sadie Creek Subdivision. We anticipate more than half of those vehicles will end up traveling through Leslie way to get to the Ustick Road. We are proposing that there be no approval of any development in this area until there is a permanent access to Ustick Road and that's our recommendation to the board and we ask you to consider that. It's also the same situation when people want to enter the Sadie Creek Subdivision and they are traveling north on Eagle Road. There is no way to get in there, except for do a u-turn here and, of course, you can't do that on Eagle Road, which is very dangerous. What will happen is they will come down and they will turn left here, get up to Ustick to get into here. So, both ways, entrance and exit, with a temporary access to Eagle Road, you're going to see a huge amount of traffic through our subdivision. This is just a simple residential road, it's not meant to be a thoroughfare, it's just a simple residential road. We have children who play, just like they do in residential areas. We don't want to see and we don't support a great increase of traffic through our subdivision, just to benefit another subdivision. So, again, we say if we could hold off on any development here until there is a permanent access established on Ustick Road, we would support that very much. The third point that we bring up I'd like to -- to our opposition is -- and this was mentioned earlier tonight in one of the testimonies from another subdivision. We would like to see an overall plan that talks about this entire area. Where are the permanent accesses? Where are the sidewalks? And consider this whole area as one and not just consider it as one here and try to anticipate what's going to happen to the north, especially to the north, because as indicated by this Commission earlier, you can't base decisions based upon anticipation of what may happen in the future, without some sort of a concrete idea that that may actually happen. So, we'd like to see an overall plan. This is something we talked about in the annexation hearings was there needs to be an overall conception plan on what's going to happen to all the property located in this area. So, we very much would like to see that plan. We are very willing -- the homeowners are very willing to meet with the developer and develop that plan. There was a meeting called by the developer a week ago Wednesday and to have us come down to this building here and to sit and talk about the development plan and how, you know, we could influence that. We are more than willing to meet with this developer or any developer about the development within these properties here. We know that the properties are going to be developed; we'd just like to be part of that process. Okay. Number four was mentioned in the staff report, the lack of a landscape plan for the entire development. We also would like to see a pretty detailed plan of what this proposal is going to be or this buffer and the landscaping on that buffer. We are very interested in what that -- there is pictures here. The pictures, unfortunately, show -- or try to reflect what it's going to be maybe in ten or 15 years, but we are very much interested in what kind of landscape there will be there and we'd like to have part of the landscape plan. If there is going to Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 92 of108 be a berm, if there is going to be fencing -- and Mr. Unger has already addressed that there would be fencing there, but a more detailed plan and also the requirements from the staff exactly what should go into that buffer, because I think right now there is a lot of talk about -- or a lot of requirements for Eagle Road, you got to have this -- there is not much requirements in the staff report and maybe it's not needed, but we'd like to see some requirements of what that berm needs to have -- or that buffer needs to have between -- on the western end of the property, because that's going to extend all the way down and probably even along this area here, because you got homeowners, you know, on the -- totally on the west and totally on the south. Okay. The fifth and the sixth kind of go together. We don't believe that this proposed development is in harmony with the Carol Subdivision. Carol Subdivision is an established subdivision, one of Meridian's oldest subdivisions, having been in existence over 25 years. There are approximately 45 homes within the subdivision. In the staff report there is a statement there on page 25, which states: Staff believes that the multi-family building elevations and pictures are very attractive and should be compatible with other uses, buildings in the area. We fail to see where there is any multi-family dwellings in this entire area. In fact, we don't know of any multi-family dwellings off of Eagle Road. So, we fail to see how this is compatible with what the area supports. I guess if you anticipate this is going to be multi-family, then, you can probably say it would be compatible with future development. Borup: I think he was referring to the design of the buildings. That's how I read that. Thurston: Okay. And, finally, the last is the concern about the property values and this is whenever -- you heard it earlier tonight and it's also a concern for us is, you know, what's this going to do to our property values, to have multi-family not only in this area here, but also in this area here, every single homeowner is concerned, you know, what is this going to do to our property values? We are homeowners -- we are not property owners, but we are homeowners and this is where we live and we want to make sure that we keep the harmony of the neighborhood that we have and that we keep our property values. We -- I'd like to restate that we are willing to meet with the developer at anytime and try to work through some of these issues to come up with a plan or proposal that would be acceptable to all the parties. I thank you for the opportunity, appreciate you staying so late for us. So, this concludes my testimony. Borup: Questions for Mr. Thurston? I don't know if I -- you had mentioned something about a meeting last -- you were invited to a meeting last Wednesday with the developer? Thurston: Yeah. A week ago Wednesday and Mr. Unger sent out a letter and I think the letter went to all those that were notified and he invited us to come down here to participate and there was like -- I think there was like 20 or 25 homeowners that attended that meeting. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 93 of 108 Thurston: One more question I had. I'm sorry if I go back here again. With the proposed development on the south side of that property and the proposed use -- or proposed development of that ditch, correct me if I'm wrong, but that ditch belongs to the water users, it doesn't belong to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, because I talked to Nampa-Meridian about tiling the ditch that runs along the back of my property, because that ditch comes down here, goes on the back of my property, and, then, goes out between Mr. Tomzcak's property and mine across the road. I called Nampa- Meridian about possibly titling that or covering it and they said don't talk to us about it, talk to the water users. So, I'm wondering if the water users need to be legally notified that there is going to be some changes or proposed changes to their ditch. And, also, if there is planned development already taking place on this property to the south, then, maybe all the property owners should have been legally notified by mail that this was going to happen. Just a question. Just leave that for you -- Borup: Yeah, there may be something on the ditch. The property to the south is -- apparently may be in the talking stage, but it's premature to notify anybody, because there is nothing to notify them about. Thurston: We were able to notify them ourselves, so that's why there is so much of them in here. Borup: That's what we usually count on. Thurston: Well, we tried to do it as best we could. Thank you for your time. Borup: Thank you. I think Mr. Thurston did a good job and probably represented most of you here. Does anybody have anything else that they'd like to add to his testimony? Come on up. Grant: My name is Steve Grant, I live at 1534 Leslie Way and my property is two lots to the north of Mr. Thurston's and one of those elevations represents the view that might be from my yard. I do admire the green grass. That's hard to come by sometimes. There are a lot of nice things about this development that have been outlined, but I think there is some fatal flaws in my opinion. This traffic issue is not something that -- it bears repetition, because, as Mr. Thurston indicated, you know, there are -- how many of the traffic count is, coming out and making a right, there will be an equal number of -- you can't get in and out of there without going through Carol Subdivision if it's right in and right out, because if you come south on the Eagle Road to get out, that's great, but how are you going to get back in there? Borup: The staff recommendation was a right-in, right-out. They have applied to ITD for a full access. Whether it will be granted or not, we don't know. Grant: I'm just saying that's a major concern, because you can't make a left in there, so you're going to have to -- as he outlined, go right back through there and if that's the only access for the south property, which they have already indicated is going to be -- is Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5.2004 Page 94 of 108 already under consideration and talks, then, whatever numbers are in that staff report are going to be multiplied by at least a factor of two and that's really a big issue and, in my opinion, one of the things that we really asked for initially was light office at the west end and I think Commissioner Newton-Huckabay has correctly pointed out that this whole thing is laid out backwards and if that access is blocked eventually, then, it only makes sense to flip it and I think consideration ought to be given by the developers to doing just that. The notion that you would drive through a parking lot and not on that road, a residential road, I don't think -- I mean everybody is going to take the path of least resistance, so people would go down Ruwe Way and down to the Sadie Creek Drive to get to that commercial property and probably not wind their way through several commercial developments that might exist, even though the access might be provided. I think there is issues about fencing that have been identified that need to be underscored. Picking a six year old up that's going to attend school on a school bus, you can't get a school bus in there with proper turnaround, I wouldn't think. So, you can't expect a five year old in the wee hours of the morning in the winter to walk all the way from perhaps the corner of some of those -- the corner of that property all the way out to Eagle Road to pick up a bus, that's an issue that nobody's raised yet, but I think is one that needs to be taken into consideration. So, I think the other things that I might have underscored have already been covered and I will just conclude my remarks with that. Borup: Okay. Thank you. We had one other here. Eagy: Good morning. I couldn't resist. My name is Greg Eagy at 3055 North Eagle Road, the property directly to the north. And, first of all, I want to state I got to get this developed. Okay. So, I want to go on the record with that and I'm for good development is what I believe in strongly. A couple of the concerns that I have are, number one, if you look up at the ceiling tile above us, these are two foot ceiling tile, okay? If you come back over here -- I'm going to step away from the mike. I'll stop talking here. Zaremba: There is a handheld that you can use. Eagy: That's fine. Two, four, six, eight, ten. There is ten feet to the wall. Okay. Ten feet from the wall is just in front of the projector right there. Put a two story building ten feet from there. That's not much of a setback. Okay. I just wanted to make that point. Secondly, one concern that I really have, I -- we own this property right here along Ustick Road and this parcel that's actually two pieces, two different parcels right there and there is the house and there is a barn. Right here we have a 140-foot long, about a seven-foot deep by about 40 feet wide irrigation lake or pond, okay. The tot area is right here, okay? That gives me some great concern as far as little kids coming over to -- I've got two little kids myself. I would really strongly like to see fencing along the side of this property if this does go through, along with the 20-foot setback, okay, from my standpoint, from a barrier standpoint, but more than anything, I just don't want to have this on my conscious down the road that -- either that or dry up the pond, maybe, or something like that. The other thing is this is already zoned commercial on the corner Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5.2004 Page 95 of 108 here. This lady has a sign up moving sale, I think she's moving out, so something must be going here and one of my other concerns is let's say that a Jackson's or a Chevron goes on this corner or whatever, these people are going to have to transition to maybe walk over to get some milk, get some beer, or get some whatever, I doubt they are going to walk out to Eagle Road and go all the way up around the corner if they are going to go on a walk to get over there. So, I'd like to see some type of flow. We have no clue when we would put a road through here at this point in time. We have no developmental plans in our mind, so I just wanted to state that. But I am very strongly against not having a setback that meets code. Okay? Borup: Okay. Mr. Unger did -- if I understood it right, say they are proposing vinyl fence clear along that whole property line. Eagy: Only the back is all he said. Borup: No, the whole -- the north. Eagy: Okay. Borup: The whole north property line. Eagy: The only other concern I guess I have is when you look at their in and out, if that's a temporary road, it's a really wide temporary road and they could pick up their extra distance by making that road a little narrower going out to Eagle Road if they had to for our barrier or our distance there. Okay. Thank you. Borup: Was there anyone else? Okay. Any final comments, Mr. Unger? Unger: Mr. Chair, for the record, Bob Unger, representing the applicant. And I'll make this as brief as possible. This is the first time I have seen this letter from the homeowners association, so I'd just like to comment on it very quickly. They talk about a lack of transitional usage for low-density residential dwellings to medium density. You know, we designed this as per the development agreement and the Comprehensive Plan. If the city wanted some sort of a different transition then that should have transpired when the property was annexed and the Comp Plan was adopted to allow the mixed use in this area. Talking about public street via the Eagle Road. I understand their concern, that people just might -- the right-in, right-out thing, I understand their concern. I have no idea how many people would do that, probably -- you know, they live there, so they know what's going on, they know that there is -- at our neighborhood meeting, which we had two weeks -- a week ago, a little over a week ago, they did -- they were telling us about how people will cut through from Eagle Road over to Ustick, you know. So, I guess those things do happen, okay? That's why we are -- that's why we are trying to get a full access from ITD until we get the north road -- the road to the north to Ustick. I mean that's of the -- that's one of the reasons that we need to have the full access and that's why we requested that and that's one of the reasons we had concerns about the recommendations of staff, that it would be right in, right -- Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 96 of 108 you know, right-in, right-out only, because it just really limits the traffic there. And I wish I had numbers for you. I don't. I haven't any real idea. Fifteen hundred vehicle trips -- I know that the residential portion of this project will produce about 928 vehicle trips per day. That's out is one trip, back in is trip two. We have talked about a lack of overall development plan. We don't have control over the north property, nor the south property. If we did, we would have brought in a project for the whole 40 acres and we wouldn't have any problems here. Once again, I think, you know, the Comp Plan calls for mixed development, so, you know, it could transition that way, north and south properties. I think we had pretty well addressed the detailed landscape plan, the one that we did this evening, really did show what the folks on the west side would be looking at. The trees that were shown in there are not shown at maturity, they are only shown at about three to four years of growth, so they would even get larger as time goes on. Borup: Well, has that plan been submitted anywhere yet? Unger: This is the one right here. Borup: That one. But that's the only copy right now? Unger: That's the only copy right now, but it becomes part of your record, so it's yours. Borup: Yes, it does. Unger: As much as I hate to give it up. Probably real expensive. But as far as us not being in harmony, once again, we are doing what the Comp Plan calls for and especially what the development agreement calls for and the building appearance really does take on a single family dwelling appearance. So, appearance wise, you know, we are better off than your normal box type developments and certainly the density that we have proposed really isn't as high as we probably could have gone, because we did want to preserve some open space. I don't know how to respond to their concerns about reduced -- the loss of value in their property. We have had a real estate marketing person who has looked at other projects for us and the other projects that we have done, vacant land, and his analysis was that, actually, the development of the property actually would increase their property values versus non-developed land next to them. I don't know if that would be similar in this situation, but I'm throwing that out there. The ditch, you know, it probably is under the jurisdiction or -- of a water user association and we will find out who that is and we will work with them. We don't have a problem with that. It's still Nampa-Meridian water, so Nampa-Meridian still has to respond on this. Mr. Green, you know, just insisted that maybe flip the road. Really, it won't work well. In fact, what we have done is actually what staff has kind of recommended to us, our particular layout and our connections to the north and south. The school bus access question is a good question. I'd like to go back to -- these are not 29-foot roads, these are 40-foot roads. All of our corners are tum-arounds, everything meets fire vehicle access requirements, which far exceed what buses need. So, I think we are in good shape there as far as bus access. I think Mr. Eagy -- we have Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 97 of 108 got -- you know, we are going to fence that northern line and everything. As far as narrowing down the road, I can't, because this is ACHD's requirements. I got to go 40 feet on these and I don't have a choice. As the irrigation, probably I do understand that and the fencing is going to -- hopefully will protect him from, you know, children getting over into his irrigation ponds. I don't think he's going to have to drain it. And as long as there is a fence across there, it's going to make it awful hard for people to cut across there to the corner in the event that some sort of mini mart or something goes in there. As long as we have fencing across there, they are going to have to climb the fence. And I believe that pretty well covers the comments and our response to those comments. If you have any other questions, I would be more than glad to answer them. If not, I really thank you for your time and staying up this late and listening to us. I hope we didn't bore you too much and, once again, we are asking for your approval. Borup: Any other questions from the Commission for Mr. Unger. Okay. Thank you. Unger: Thank you very much. Borup: Okay. Commissioners -- we have concluded the public testimony session. We gave everybody an opportunity to stand up and no one else did, so, yes, we have concluded that. You need to -- maybe have to come on up and get it on the microphone just for a question. Morris: I'm Linda Morris, I live at 1374 Leslie Way. Earlier.1 believe staff defined medium density as three to eight dwellings per acre; is that correct? And I believe the developer was just talking about they are putting in medium density dwelling right now. Borup: No. That was your letter that said medium density, I believe. Morris: Just now he just spoke when he was doing rebuttal. He talked about medium density. Borup: Yeah. He was referring -- he was reading the letter here. He was reading off of this letter, I believe. Is that right, Mr. Unger? Okay. Morris: Okay. I'm sorry. I misunderstood that. Borup: Yeah. I don't think their application asked for that. And, yes, that -- it would not meet medium density definition, I don't believe. Commissioners, what would we like to do tonight, besides go home? Zaremba: Well, I have some comments. Well, let me attack one part first and, then, I'll go where I really intend to go with it. It would seem to me that when we talk about a backage road or access other than to Eagle Road, the eventual look of this area would include a back-age road that came from Ustick and somehow looped out to Eagle at this point. I could see ITD and the City of Meridian approving a full access, probably even signalized right there, so that those people could make turns any direction and any Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5, 2004 Page 98 of 108 direction. Same thing up here at Ustick, maybe not signalized, but that would be a full access. The fact that this is a single property in the middle of this whole project means that they need access now. I agree with staff that that access should go away at some point and I agree with staff that if it's going to be there now, it should be a right-in, right- out, but the eventual plan would be to have it go away and have this be a full signalized access, I think it's far enough away from Ustick that ITD would go for that. That being said, I feel that this is a little bit premature at this point to be looking at this project. I'm a little disappointed that the City Council took a recommendation that we made -- when we had the annexation and zoning discussion, it was for all of this corner, plus a good area over here. Based on that, I know personally my recommendation to approve the annexation and zoning was based on that entire piece of property and based on the understanding that that entire piece of property would provide a fairly decent concept plan before the City Council approved it and I forwarded it to the City Council with all of our recommendation, but with my personal recommendation based on those understandings and I'm a little bit disappointed that this is not something that the City Council reminded -- I think they should have remanded it back to us when it got to them in a different format than we -- than it left us recommended. The annexation turns out not to be what I thought I was recommending, the concept plan turns out not to be what I was expecting to recommend, and I feel we need to see a bigger picture of this area before we can consider that. So, my own personal question is there are elements about this project that I like, so my question is -- I don't feel so strongly about it to deny it, but I would like to continue it until we see -- if it sounds like it's immanent that something is going to happen here, I would at least like to see a plan for that before I personally agree to this property, based my on disappointment that it even got annexed piecemeal and I guess that's my position. Newton-Huckaby: I have to concur with Commissioner Zaremba. Zaremba: I didn't hear what you said. Borup: She concurs. Newton-Huckabay: I concur. Borup: Could we ask of staff -- has there been even any preliminary discussion with the city on the property to the south? Have they come in for any initial meetings or anything? Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that property owner, at least that has an interest, is in the audience this evening and I did speak with them earlier this week, not specifically about a development, and I do not believe he has been in for a pre-app, but we talked more about the impacts of approval of this would mean for his project. So, we didn't get into specifics and we haven't seen anything, but we did talk about how that would develop based on approval of this subject property. So, yes and no, I guess. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5.2004 Page 99 of 108 Borup: Okay. Thank you. So, with that answer, it sounds like to answer your question, it may be awhile. Canning: Chairman Borup, Members of the -- Chairman Borup, may I? Okay. Just to give you a little background on some of -- the number of hearings that this went through at the City Council, it was clear they were -- well, it was clear that the east side of the property was being annexed -- I'm sorry. It's early. The west side of the property was being annexed to facilitate development on the east side of the property -- of Eagle Road. Eagle Road -- the east side of the property is extremely valuable compared to -- well, I don't know, you know, the east side is the right-in, right"out going home traffic, which is -- always generates more property value than the morning traffic right-in, right- out. So, it was pretty clear that the annexation was being done primarily to annex the Kissler property. That was their annexation path. And also that there was not much cohesion on the east and Mr. Eagy dropping out was evidence of that. They wanted the annexation; they were very reluctant to do the concept plan. Mr. Strite expressed a lot of frustration in trying to work with so many owners on a concept plan that met all their needs. So, I don't see these owners banding together to do a specific plan. I mean they had the opportunity and they clearly were uncomfortable with a lot of it. The concept plan that you see was -- the first concept plan that the city's ever approved for an annexation that wasn't as specific as a real -- laying out the parking spaces and putting footprints on the buildings, so it was the first time anyone had done anything like that, it turns out that we got much more specificity on this annexation than we did on the other two comers. We didn't get anything there. I mean we got the Lowe's layout and that was it. So, you know, we got something on this one. I would agree, though, that maybe that the light office use as a buffer was discussed a lot more than it ended up actually showing up on the concept plan, but that is an approved concept plan. If you want to deny it, deny it based on what you see before you today, not on them coming back with a specific plan for the area. Borup: So, you're saying we have already seen that plan? Canning: We have already seen that plan and it's been approved by the City Council. Borup: It may not be much of a plan, but they have done it. Zaremba: Well, I would say City Council thought they had my. approval for that and they didn't. Canning: I might also take this opportunity to point out if there is something you want, you always have the opportunity to wait until you have that. I mean you didn't -- I guess in the future -- Borup: We didn't continue the annexation at the time, because we wanted to move it along and I felt I was assured that certain things were going to happen, which didn't happen. So, I guess I'm as much disappointed with myself as trying not to hold up the Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5.2004 Page 100 of 108 process as I am with anybody else, but I -- I would have guessed that this was one the City Council would have rejected back to us and -- Canning: And then -- Zaremba: I would have liked the opportunity to reconsider the new condition -- or the new situation. Canning: And Chairman and Members of the Commission, that may not have been on at the time. It was the first time that City Council had annexed a property without a real specific development plan to my knowledge. They have done some little in-fill things here and there, but this whole corner was the first time they have done large-scale annexations without real specific development plans. So, it was new for all of us, so don't be too hard on yourself. Borup: I think the other corners are proceeding like we visualized, though, so far. This is the only one that hasn't. Zaremba: I feel for myself that it's premature for me to recommend approval of this. I'm not ready to do that, whether we talk about continuation or denial, either way, I'm not so ready to deny it either, but, on the other hand, if we continue it, we have to continue it to a specific date and I'm not sure we can do that either. So, I -- Borup: Oh, we can do it, but we are -- Zaremba: There are more than one of us up here, because there may be other opinions, but I have expressed mine. Borup: Other comments? Rohm: I think it's premature myself. It -- not knowing specifically what's going to go in around it also influences my position on its -- I don't think we are quite ready for it right there. Moe: I would also agree with that. Another thing that -- quite frankly, there is a couple items on the plan that still need work as well as far as buffers and whatnot. I'm not willing to change that as well. So, the plan is going to have to be changed somewhat to take care of the 20-foot buffer, in lieu of what the applicant was hoping to go with ten foot. So, I'm not sure I'm ready to approve it either. Borup: Well, that's the only thing I would disagree with. I don't have a problem with the ten-foot. Moe: I do. Borup: Unless you assume that the property is going to stay residential forever. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5,2004 Page1010f108 Zaremba: The property to the north? Borup: Yeah. I don't think that's a valid -- Zaremba: Forever is a long time, but it still could be many years. Newton-Huckabay: I don't think that's an issue worth debating. Borup: No. That's what I say, that's the only thing that I -- okay. Any other comments? Canning: Mr. Chairman, given the things that were just said, I might remind you that -- let's see, how does this work, you actually deny the -- if you want to make a motion for denial, it is for actual denial of the preliminary plat, but for the planned development and the zoning -- for the planned development it would just be a recommendation. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well, I would take opinions from the other Commissioners as to whether we are talking about continuation or denial. Newton-Huckabay: I'm talking about denial. Zaremba: Okay. Rohm: Denial. Moe: Denial. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to make a motion. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: I move that we close the public hearings on PP 04-21 and CUP 04-023. Rohm: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we deny Item 13 -- I'm going to take them out of order, because usually you do the preliminary plat first. Borup: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning August 5. 2004 Page 102 of 108 Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, my motion is that we deny Item 13, PP 04-021 is the correct file number, request for preliminary plat approval of 31 residential four-plex lots, seven commercial lots, and eight common lots on 10.05 acres in a CoG zone for proposed Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc., 2935 North Eagle Road and I would state as a reason we feel that this is premature at this time and there are issues that need to be resolved both with ITD and with neighboring projects before there is enough information for you us to go on. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend -- forward to the City Council recommending denial of Item 12, CUP 04-023, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development for a mixed use development consisting of 120 multi-family units, 28,660 square feet commercial/office space and 3.43 acres of open space on 10.05 acres in a CoG zone for proposed Sadie Creek Subdivision by FOLIO, Inc., 2935 North Eagle Road, for the reason, essentially, that we did not approve the preliminary plat and, therefore, a CUP is not appropriate. Moe: Second. Borup: Motion and second. All in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. Thank you, everyone for staying with us. We enjoyed the company. Okay. Commissioners, are we going to handle this last item or do we want to continue it? Canning: Chairman Borup, with the background noise we can't hear you on your mike. You might -- Borup: Can we talk off the record for a little bit? (Recess.) Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 03-046 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 214 residential lots and 39 common lots on 46.40 acres in a proposed R-8 (PD) zone for proposed Chesterfield Subdivision by Centennial Development, LLC - east of South Black Cat Road and north of West Franklin Road: