Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 3, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 3,2005 Page 30 of 58 Borup: Okay. So, want me to try again? Zaremba: Continuing with the motion. Borup: Well, I was just asking if that wording sounded appropriate, so -- well, let me try a motion, then. Zaremba: Oh, I thought that was. Borup: No. I was just seeing if that wording sounded -- just for discussion. So, Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward to City Council recommending approval of CUP 05- 001, request for a Conditional Use Permit for an office retail use in an Old Town zone for Robert Monson at 829 North Meridian Road, to include all staff comments, the memo for the hearing date of February 3rd, with the following changes: That on page eight, under conditions of approval number three, that the word temporary be deleted and at the end of that paragraph be added -- and as such time as ACHD -- well, wait a minute. Let's see. No. Right. As is stated, which states, and, then, add at such time as ACHD may need the additional right of way, that the -- if, indeed, there is a sign in the right of way, that it be relocated at the expense of the property owner and at such time it was determined that -- and the next sentence -- if at such -- at such time if it is determined that a right of way is not needed, the easement may be vacated. And in item number seven, one freestanding sign is approved on this project and, then, go on to say at such time as -- as per item number three, if the right of way is required and the sign needs to be relocated, it will be done so at the expense of the. property owner. And that's alii have. Is there is anything else that needs to be added? Moe: I'll second that. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second on CUP 05-001. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: We are not quite at 9:00 o'clock yet, but traditionally this is about where we take a break, so we will recess for about ten minutes and, then, reconvene. (Recess.) Item 9: Public Hearing: AZ 04-035 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.01 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Klamath Basin Subdivision by Randy Worden - 4625 West Ustick Road: Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 04-045 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 single-family residential building lots and 3 other lots on 4.56 acres in a Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 31 of 58 proposed R-4 zone for Klamath Basin Subdivision by Randy Worden - 4625 West Ustick Road: Zaremba: Ladies and gentlemen, all the Commissioners have returned and people are in place and we will proceed with our meeting for this evening. I'd like to open the public hearings for -- again, two related items, AZ 04-035, request for annexation and zoning of 5,01 acres from RUT to R-4 zone and the Public Hearing PP 04-045, request for preliminary plat approval of 12 single family residential building lots and three other lots on 4.56 acres in a proposed R-4 zone. Both of these are for Klamath Basin Subdivision by Randy Worden, 4625 West Ustick Road. And we will begin with the staff presentation. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As noted this is a 12 lot subdivision. There are three open space common lots included with the development. It's located on the southeast corner of Ustick and Black Cat, approximately five acres in size. As you can see from the map here, it is currently zoned RUT. There are some existing developments in the general vicinity. Directly to the east is Statten Park Subdivision. That's zoned R-4 in the city. The parcels to the south are also still in the county. Those parcels and the large parcel to the north are still in the county. Kitty- corner across the intersection is the recently approved Birchstone Creek Subdivision. That one is zoned R-8. So, this is an area of city of impact and city limits that is rapidly developing to residential densities. There is the aerial view. There are -- there is one home on the side and several outbuildings. The applicant is proposing to remove those. The subdivision plat is here on this slide. The applicant has proposed that all the five plus acres be zoned R-4, low density residential. This is shown as low density residential on our Comprehensive Future Land Use Map. Each lot contains the minimum 8,000 square feet required by the zone. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is 2.63 dwelling units per acre. All housing types are single family, with a minimum house size proposed of 1,400 square feet. Just a couple of items that I want to touch on briefly in the special considerations section of the staff report, the first one being the length of the cul-de-sac. This property does have a stub street from Statten Park to the east that they are proposing to extend and bring into the development as shown here. It does exceed, once extended, our maximum cul-de-sac length of 450 feet. The applicant has submitted that variance request. Those variances are only acted on by the City Council, so site-specific condition number two kind of assumes that the City Council will approve that variance request. It is noted, though, that it does require that approval and it doesn't meet code as drawn. Staff is supportive of that variance. There are some findings there of why that is. I won't go into the details. If you have questions, I will answer them. The other thing is the tree mitigation. As you can see on the site, there are several large existing trees on site. We have encouraged the applicant to get with the city forester, come up with a tree mitigation, tree protection plan for those trees. I just wanted to go on record with that as well, that there are some nice trees out there that we'd like to see retained, as many as possible. So, with that I will stand for any questions. Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 3,2005 Page 32 of 58 Newton-Huckabay: I have none. Zaremba: I did have one. On page seven in your discussion about the -- again, some of the discussion is the cul-de-sac length, but you say that it would not be useful to have a crossing across the canal that's there. Yeah. Go back to the picture that you had before there. These, what appear to be four different properties, I think are all under one ownership, and are likely to develop, the one that the existing house is actually on, that triangular piece. I agree with what we are looking at, using the stub street coming from there. The logic is that when those parcels develop they will develop as a unit and probably their access will be the stub street here. It doesn't appear that there is likely to be access to Black Cat Road. Just in imagining how that would develop, it would make sense if this stub street came in the depth of the house and there probably was a cross- stub street and, then, something is going to need to go north from that to get a few more houses in here. It would be logical for it to go north and actually connect to the end of the street that this application is proposing and the reason I'm proposing that idea is that it would make sense, actually, to do a culvert or a bridge across at that point. I guess what I'm wanting to discuss is your assessment that this would not allow an efficient development of the other property, I don't want to sound like I'm disagreeing with you, but I would like some more discussion. Hood: I did look at that as well, Mr. Chair, and I don't believe -- and what I failed to do is make sure that all those are owned by the same property owner. I fully intend to -- Zaremba: I just assumed that. I don't know it for sure either. Hood: Looking at the parcel layout, I would say you're probably correct, in that they don't look like they are probably legal parcels that were created in Ada County. That being said, I don't -- typically, the city hasn't required that you put that puzzle back together and all those develop at the same time, if they are in separate ownership. But I guess kind of getting off point a little bit in that, it could work with the stub street to the south. It would, I believe, still have to probably come out to Black Cat at some point, you know, before -- between the intersection and the existing access into Golf View -- Ashford Greens. That subdivision there to the south. Zaremba: Uh-huh. It's Ashford Greens. Hood: Yeah. Ashford Greens. It could happen. To tell you the truth, either way I think would work. The way that the applicants submitted it, they kind of have a little bit of a hardship, in my opinion, that the stub street was put there and if they don't bring it back up to Ustick, which is, really, what we try to discourage, was bringing it fairly close to that intersection, they have shown a cul-de-sacking -- I don't know that it -- just looking at it being one parcel, the triangular-shaped parcel directly to the south, having a full 50- foot right of way go through that and out to Black Cat was the inefficient development of the parcel that I referred to in my staff report, not assuming that all four of those develop together. Your scenario I think would work and is the highest and best use of the land, Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 33 of 58 bringing the stub through those properties all the way to connect through. I just think that there is a lot of assumptions that are made with that scenario. That's why the inefficient language I think was put in the staff report, because it just looked at the smaller three and a half acres and bringing the street through that, it didn't seem to be feasible, so -- Zaremba: The way the cul-de-sac is laid out on the current application, it looks to me it's positioned such that it might be possible at some future time to make that connection without ruining a whole lot of property, So, my scenario, I suppose, doesn't even have to be decided tonight, it could be recovered sometime later. The only question would be if we insisted that there be a canal crossing, then, we would ask the applicant to put half the cost of the culvert into a trust or something like that, but -- Hood: Exactly. And as shown it doesn't have the full 50-foot right of way that would be required to -- so it would, actually, have to be a stub street to that property. I mean you're close. I don't know that it would affect any of their build-able lots or anything like that, but, you know, it would be technically a stub street. It would have to be, then, extended by the adjacent property owner when they develop, which is a good policy in general to have, but it does change some of those things. Again, like you mentioned, 50 percent of the road trust for either a bridge or a culvert is typically what we require for a stub street across a lateral. Zaremba: But that would also mean they wouldn't need the -- they would not need the variance for the length of the cul-de-sac, because it eventually would not be a cul-de- sac. I'm not locked into that idea, it's just -- Hood: It's not a bad one. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chairman, are you proposing that they leave the top half of the cul-de-sac and put the stub right there? Zaremba: The part that I would affect would be -- Newton-Huckabay: Leave this and right in here would be the stub? Zaremba: It would stub this way -- Newton-Huckabay: And you would go straight. Zaremba: -- and that would mean you probably wouldn't need as big a knuckle -- it would become a knuckle, instead of a turnaround, at the end. It wouldn't need to be as big, which would enlarge two of those properties if the decision was made now. It's still in such a position, if ACHD wanted to later, it wouldn't take very much off of the two adjoining properties to say later that it had to be done, it's just that -- Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 3,2005 Page 34 of 58 Newton-Huckabay: Well, I would think that that could really easily be one of those situations where we go, oh, we really didn't think that one through very well, there should be a stub. I agree with you. Zaremba: Well, I feel it should be there. I'm just imagining what the other property is going to do. Go back to one of the big aerial views again, if you would. Just -- if you look across the street and you realize there is a reason why this street did not connect to Black Cat, Black Cat is definitely going to be five lane at sometime and maybe a major arterial, having -- and Ustick is. going to be five lanes and a major arterial, I agree with not allowing access to Ustick directly from this subdivision, but I believe there is not going to be an approval of a direct access from this subdivision either, and my feeling is that those two stubs, this stub and that stub, should connect, not necessarily in a straight line, but at least zigzagging around that you can get there. Borup: I just wonder where -- where the existing house was in relation to where we are -- no, on the other property. Zaremba: On the other property the existing house is about here. You can see it. This is the existing house. And they have a barn here and something else. On the other -- on what looks like other parcels, there is a barn and another outbuilding of some sort, I think. Rohm: I guess my only concern is if you adjust the cul-de-sac, with the provision that it's going to be a stub street to the south, then, until this other parcel of ground develops, would the fire department have problems getting in and out to service these lots that are being developed as part of this project? That's a question more than, you know, a position. Zaremba: Well, it's a good question and there is no -- I'm not aware of any action by the other property owner to do anything. I mean they appear to be happy living in their house and I don't know if they have any thought of redeveloping, so who knows how long that would be before there really was such a connection. Borup: Well, I think -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm is saying there would be a turnaround of some type required. Rohm: Yeah. There is not adequate turnaround. Zaremba: Even if it were a future stub street it would still, for the time being, need a turnaround. Rohm: Right. That's-- Zaremba: And I'm kind of supporting that in saying, you know, who knows how long it's going to have to stay that way. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 35 of 58 Rohm: And maybe to take testimony from the applicant might be the -- Zaremba: I was going to say, if we have thrown enough confusion, let's have the applicant -- somewhere in your discussion you might mention. whether you have had any talks with the property owner to the southwest I guess it would be. Newton-Huckabay: Is that property owner here? Crawford: The adjoining property owner? Newton-Huckabay: Yeah. Crawford: Not that I'm aware of. Zaremba: Doesn't appear to be. Okay. Crawford: My name is David Crawford; I'm with B&A Engineers. Our office is at 5505 West Franklin Road in Boise, and I'm here representing the applicant and owner tonight, who is here. And, actually, had kind of a little lengthier discussion about the generalities of the site that I was going to talk about and I think I will choose to take some additional time to address a bridge crossing with the road. We currently -- or we previously had had some discussions about the road extension of Neeman Street and the potentiality of it to cross that Eight Mile Lateral. We discussed that a little bit with ACHD in our pre- application meetings and tech review meetings with them and they always express their concern about the -- two things. Number one is the infrastructure requirements for a bridge and the length -- or the long-term maintenance issues with them and also the proximity of access points to the intersection along minor arterials, which I think is part of the discussion with the variance request that is kind of before you tonight, but not really. But, in essence, it is. And so that wasn't a preferred option by ACHD. So, we did propose the cul-de-sac to fit the site and it's odd triangular shape. The owner just informed me that the -- there is two separate property owners, one here and one here. There is a distinct possibility that those two properties could develop differently and the stub street to the south, given that scenario, would be able to be brought up through over to Black Cat Road a little further south than the canal or, you know, further away from that intersection, The applicant and the owner did state to me that he would be willing to reserve an easement through this area to grant that future extension if it was deemed necessary, but given our discussions with the Meridian staff and ACHD, we don't believe that that's necessarily the best way to keep the access points, you know, further away from the potential for a signalized intersection up there at Ustick and Black Cat Roads. And I guess that's all I really have to say about that, other than the bulk of the rest of the staff report we agree with. The applicant has conferred with -- I, on his behalf have conferred with the Meridian fire district, with some of the other little nuances about the property, and regarding the common drive down here that serves these four lots and it's kind of -- it's a little odd in other areas, we have had jurisdictions that want to keep accesses of all the lots to the common drive and in this particular instance we'd like to see an option for builders to use to take best use of the land to take access from Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 36 of 58 this lot maybe granted either to comrnon drive or out to Neeman Street directly on either side of the common drive, as well as the -- these two parcels taking their primary access off the common drive itself. Joe Silva of the Meridian Fire District has said that that -- common drive that we propose there will function in accordance with his policy and he will be able to deal with that issue. I think that's about all the minor stuff that I have and I will just stand for any questions that you may have for me at this time. Rohm: Just a comment. I'd rather see those two lots take their access off Neeman Drive, I think, as opposed to coming off that common drive, just -- you get too many cars coming and going down the common drive and it might as well be a road. Borup: I think you could visualize a plan that may have the garage access that and the front of the house access the other road, Neeman. I mean that would just allow some flexibility in design, but -- Rohm: Do we have to address that in terms of whether or not they can take access? Borup: Well, I think the staff report does. It says if it is going to be, then, the driveway needs to be wider. I'm assuming that you're fine with how the staff report is worded? Crawford: We can accommodate a wider driveway within that area. Borup: Yeah. You have 30 feet there. Crawford: Yeah. Borup: And that was the only question I had. You had mentioned that you were in agreement with the bulk of the staff report, but I didn't hear anything that you weren't in agreement with. Crawford: Well -- yeah. So, we agree with the findings that are written in there. Borup: So, it really is everything. The only thing the discussion was was on the crossing, which wasn't even in the staff report I don't believe. Crawford: Right. Borup: Okay. Zaremba: Well, on the shared common driveway, I think the applicant and staff have probably already agreed on this. I have no problem allowing the builder to make the choice, but I also agree that if the side lots, which are number 12 and number 15, if they take their access to Neeman, then, the paved area of the. driveway doesn't need to be as wide, because the only traffic is straight through. If they take their access from the driveway, that's the reason for it being wider, is because they need a turning movement and as long as everybody knows that that's the condition of using the driveway -- I think Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 37 of 58 the only thing that I didn't see in the discussion on the staff remarks, it's page ten, and it's paragraph three, and I didn't see it on the plat -- that my feeling is there should be a cross-access agreement definitely between Lots 13 and 14 need a cross-access agreement, because each of them is going to have to use half of the other's property to come -- at least on the flag. Crawford: Yeah. Zaremba: And I didn't see a mention of the cross-access agreement. Crawford: That is fairly typical for a cross -- it's typically taken care of as a condition of final plat to dedicate the usage of an easement -- or a cross-access -- that would be a common drive easement is what it would be called -- or what we typically call it on the final plat and -- Zaremba: You're remembering that and you will get it on there. Hood: Mr. Chair? It is, actually, on the submitted preliminary plat that there is a cross- access for those lots to use the common driveway. Zaremba: It must be in the small print. Hood: I'm sorry; it's not in the report stated that way, but on the submitted preliminary plat it is graphically shown, Zaremba: I glanced and I must have missed it. Okay. Then, that question is satisfied. Any other questions from Comrnissioners? Borup: I have none. Rohm: Thank you. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. We had no one sign up, but if anybody has things they care to say about this project, now is the time. Okay. Commissioners? Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I like your thoughts on the stub street to the southwest to tie these two parcels together for possible additional development. I believe the applicant stated that they would be willing to provide easement for that stub street, as opposed to putting the stub street in as part of the development. Does that -- is that acceptable and Zaremba: That works for me. If there were no canal there and this were all flat land, I would say it's obvious that there should be a stub street there. When you're talking about having to bridge or culvert or -- I mean that's a considerable expense to set aside on some assumption that there may some day be something possibly done to the south that might require it and I'm not willing to hamstring the applicant that far, but I like the Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3,2005 Page 38 of 58 suggestion of providing an easement that would connect in the currently shown u-turn area of the cul-de-sac, so that if at some day the other property developed and ACHD decided this should be connected, that at least we were prepared for that. Rohm: Yeah. I like that, too. And leave the cul-de-sac as it currently is designed. Zaremba: Yeah. I guess we'd have to. Rohm: Yeah. And I -- the applicant's nodding consent, so I think that that seems to address your concerns over the possibility of tying these two parcels together as the adjacent ground is developed. Zaremba: But my feeling is we are going to have the same discussion about cul-de-sac length -- cul-de-sac length with the other parcel, because I am not as -- I don't feel it's very likely that that parcel will have access to Black Cat from any of those four parcels, even if they are separate ownership. Rohm: Other than current access. Is there current access now? Zaremba: Yeah. The one house that exists does have a driveway to -- or maybe a u- shaped driveway with two accesses, possibly. Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: But I suspect that ACHD is not going to want access any closer than where Moon Lake is, which is the existing street. So, I mean just preserving the future possibility is good enough for me. Rohm: So, would that be as an additional item on the preliminary plat? Zaremba: Yes. That's not an annexation and zoning issue, that's a preliminary plat issue. Rohm: So, maybe site-specific item 13, just add an item? Zaremba: Yeah. I don't see another that would join that that would be an additional 13. Rohm: Okay. Hood: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I'd just ask you be careful on how you word that easement, if that's the direction the motion maker wants to go. There has been some discrepancies -- these future right of way easements or -- do want it to be a right of way easement for the city, we aren't in the right of way business, so if it's really right of way -- a right of way easement is right of way, according to some of the old plats, according to John Priester, the Ada County surveyor, so just -- typically you don't see those. I like the idea, I'd love to preserve that, but we may be putting something on Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 39 of 58 this property that they will have to cornply with, not given the option to comply with in the future that that actually does get extended as right of way. So, wording that easement may be a little tricky. Who is it to? Zaremba: We could say similar to the last one. Well, I would make the easement to ACHD, since they are the right of way people, but similar to we added to the one -- I think it was just previous to this. And when the parcel southwest of it develops and there is no need for that easement, it can be abandoned. Baird: Mr. Chair, I would add to the comments that you don't want to call this a future easement or a temporary easement, it is an easement, and just similar to the way you treated the last application, if in the future it's not required, then, they can apply to have it vacated. Rohm: Well, in this particular case the easement's not going to affect any build-able lots, it's just going to cross the common lot, and so even if it's never utilized, it isn't going to change things any. All it's going to do is provide for a way to put that stub street in, if, in fact, it becomes necessary and so the easement won't hurt this development. Zaremba: Even if it never becomes necessary it doesn't cost them anything. Rohm: Exactly. Other than just the effort to write the description for the easement, you know, and include it in their package of development. That's the only additional cost there is. Moe: Mr. Chairman, staff has a comment. Zaremba: Mr. Freckleton. Freckleton: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just one thought I wanted to throw out for your consideration and that is if and when the parcels to the south do develop, if -- if all that is required is an easement, the burden of construction -- the total cost of construction is going to land on that guy to the south. I guess I'll throw that out. If you do feel that this road is viable in the future, certainly how we have handled it in the past when we have had a project where you have had a half a ditch or -- we try and divide that responsibility for the burden of construction and so we will - you know, we will have the -- one developer put up half the cost of a crossing and that sort of thing. So, I guess it's just kind of a -- if you're leaning that direction of having the street in the future, in all fairness, you know, the cost of construction should be half borne by this developer, I feel. I'm sorry. Rohm: No. That's actually a good point. So, would you suggest that the developer put some monies in a trust for future development at -- you know, I don't know how you -- how far do you take this? Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3,2005 Page 40 of 58 Freckleton Mr. Chair, Commissioner Rohm, I think that if it is your preference that the road be -- be installed, I think that the improvernents up to -- up to the lateral be constructed. I think they could -- probably coUld do some reconfiguration of their cul-de- sac and make more of a knuckle and probably gain some depth in those two upper lots that are a bit pinched now and, then, possibly for the actual crossing of the lateral, maybe do some sort of a cost share, the half -- half the cost to put into, you know, funds that are just deposited with the city for that future crossing. Did that answer your question? Rohm: I guess I would be interested in the applicant's input, but that seems reasonable. Is the Public Hearing closed? Borup: No. .1 don't believe so. Zaremba: Well -- and part of my discussion before was if -- if we have this applicant actually make the half of a stub street that we feel is going to be there -- at least I personally feel it's going to end up being there eventually, I think it's fair to say the trade for that is we don't need as big of a turnaround and those two lots can have more property in them and, therefore, the trade off, even though there is expense of doing half the bridge or half the culvert, those two lots become more valuable by -- I'm saying that doesn't need to be as big of a turnaround. But Commissioner Newton-Huckabay raised the point until such time as the other property is developed and that stub street does go somewhere, what do you do for a turnaround? Do we make that a -- maybe we make that a temporary turnaround that can be abandoned, but by, then, all the construction equipment is gone and the road is in place. Borup: And the houses are probably there. Zaremba: The houses are there. Borup: Mr. Chairman, could -- Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: Well, from staff, how much area is needed for a knuckle or a T turnaround or something like that? Hood: I don't have the area calculations, but just along those same lines -- Borup: I mean here we have got a 52-foot radius. Hood: It's going to be similar. You're going to need a 48-foot outside radius for a fire trunk to turn, 28 foot inside. So, that's not going to change whether it's temporary or permanent. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3. 2005 Page 41 of 58 Borup: Well, on the hammerheads we have done, that's been on shorter streets, though, haven't they? Hood: Yeah. You could do a temporary hammerhead; I believe, 120 -- 120 feet. Borup: So, that doesn't apply here then. Hood: What they could do is, you know, basically keep the same design here, stub it there, and, then, you cross-hatch something that, you know, does basically go straight across and, then, that reverts to those adjacent buildable lots at such time as the street is extended. That's how the note reads on the plat, basically, is it reverts to the adjacent property owner. You have an easement for a temporary turnaround until such time as the stub street is extended. And, then, the fire department still signs off on that turnaround meeting their standards, whatever they are, and they have five or six different hammerheads, cul-de-sacs, different types of variations of turnarounds that they can accept, even on a temporary basis. So, you know, there are ways that full utilization of that property in the future could happen as well, you know, having a cul-de- sac -- that turnaround you don't need after a stub street is extended, can, again, revert back, so -- Zaremba: What is the physical -- what are the physical properties of a temporary turnaround? Does it need to be paved or can it just be gravel, so that it can be undone -- Hood: I'm not up on the current fire code. As of a couple of years ago I know they did accept some compacted and some type of pavement, but it doesn't have to be necessarily the full cross-section of a street. So, they don't have like just gravel thrown out there as a turnaround, but they do have an alternative to a full street cross-section. Borup: That's what I have seen in other subdivisions. It's paved. It didn't look like it -- maybe it was up to full street standards, but there was pavement. Hood: Obviously, it's got to be able to handle the weight load of a truck, a fire truck, but I just don't know what that cross-section is. Borup: Mr. Chairman, I had some additional thoughts on this. I certainly agree the idea of having the -- I mean that's part of what we are supposed to do is planning for the future and that access to the other property is important, but we are looking at something here we don't have any idea if it's ever going to happen and if it does and the only way to develop that property is through a crossing, that,to me, seems like that would be more on the burden of the other property owner. This property can be developed as designed now, other than a little bit on the cul-de-sac length. The other property mayor may not be able to be developed, but if it can't, then, you know, that -- it seems to me like that's more of that property owner's concern to make it work for whatever they want to do. I'm concerned about requiring any type of trust or money set aside on something that's so unsure. I know we have done it in the past, but those have Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 42 of 58 been, again, maybe no guarantee what's going to happen, but a lot more -- a lot more to me have been a lot more cut and dry. I mean it was a lot more. obvious that something is going to happen when you have 80 acres next to an 80-acre subdivision with a canal between them. Hood: Mr. Chair, along those same lines, if I may. Staff -- in the staff report it didn't specifically say that it's going to cost too much to construct a bridge, but, certainly, you know, this three acre parcel, if they are going to have to put up half the cost of a bridge to get four or five lots, it's just not going to pencil out for them and this is probably going to remain vacant until, you know, property values are so expensive that they can build a bridge. So, that was something that -- weighing the pluses and minuses, I love the interconnectivity, I love not having those other access points to the arterials, there is just a huge barrier to that in this instance and the scope of this property, the size of properties, it didn't seem to be right to have, in this instance, to require that stub street. So, with that I will not say anymore on this issue. Thank you, though. Rohm: Those are good comments. Newton-Huckabay: Can I ask a question? So, if we move forward with the first proposed access -- excuse me -- easement for a potential future access, are we not providing that connectivity in the future, should it arise, without hindering the development as Craig said, of a rather small piece of property? Zaremba: Yes. Newton-Huckabay: I mean we are killing one bird with a stone and wounding the other one. Zaremba: The simple easement preserves the space for putting a road with a bridge or a culvert, whichever, in that area. It doesn't pay for it and I guess the discussion is without knowing what the property owner to the south is going to do, is it fair to hold that much money out -- you know, ask this applicant to put money into a trust -- Newton-Huckabay: Well -- and if that property owner was that concerned about access, they would be here this evening, I think, saying I want access. Borup: And that's why I think having the easement does provide for that property owner. Newton-Huckabay: Right. Borup: If they are in a situation where they absolutely have to have that, it's there for them. Zaremba: It's not blocked off by a house or a building or a wall or something like that. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3,2005 Page 43 of 58 Borup: But requiring money to be set aside at this point is -- doesn't seem to -- Zaremba: And that's my feeling. I would want to be able to trade something right now, like saying you could make two of those properties bigger -- Borup: Yeah. Zaremba: -- you know. Borup: But that may never happen. Especially if you have to have a temporary turnaround, it may be 20 years. Zaremba: Yeah. Rohm: Maybe the thing is is put the easement in and leave everything as designed. And, then, if, in fact, the property to the southwest does develop, then, the easement's in place to tie the two together and that's -- Zaremba: And this other property bears the whole burden. Rohm: And then -- right. Exactly. Borup: It may not be easing their financial, but if we didn't have that, it could shoot down their whole project. So, I think that's looking out for their interest. Rohm: It doesn't look like staff has any problem with that. I like that answer. Zaremba: Staff would like the money in the bank. Hood: Mr. Chair, I know I said I wasn't going to comment anymore on this, but just with the easement, if that's the direction you guys are going now, rather than making it a right of way easement, a public right of way easement, make the easement to that property owner, rather than -- because, then, again, it looks like right of way, if it's -- if it's public right of way, make it to -- and, sorry, I don't have the parcel number or the current property owner's name, but make it to that parcel directly to the south. And, then, everyone's clear it's an access easement 50 feet wide, if you want, for that parcel owner to the south. Zaremba: That's a blank that can be filled in later, probably. Hood: Yes. Zaremba: Everybody knows what we are talking about. Borup: We have got parcel numbers. The parcel number is in the -- in our papers. Meridian Pianning & Zoning February 3,2005 Page 44 of 58 Zaremba: Let me ask our city attorney if the direction it sounds like we are going is legal. Mr. Baird? Baird: I don't see any problem with it. Zaremba: Okay. Newton-Huckabay: Can we close the Public Hearing? Zaremba: That's probably next. Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Borup: Are we assuming that that sounds agreeable to the applicant? Zaremba: The Public Hearing is still open if the applicant would care to -- comment on the microphone, please. Crawford: I believe the current thinking of the Commission tonight is what the applicant agreed to with holding an easement out to the adjoining property owner: Just to get it on the record, a bridge would at this point cause substantial delay and drive the project into next year, as bridges have to be built in the off season and we are coming to the on season here pretty quick and the financial burden placed on -- on this particular project for even half the cost of a bridge, though we don't know how the numbers pencil out, it would dramatically impact it. But, other than that, I think we are okay with withholding a easement in that are for future use. Zaremba: Thank you. Newton-Huckabay: Mr. Chair, I recommend we close the Public Hearing on AZ 04-035 and PP 04-045. Rohm: I'll second that motion. Zaremba: Moved and seconded to close the two Public Hearings. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Just for a point of discussion. The easement -- Moe: Pardon? Newton-Huckabay: I said no more discussion. Rohm: Well, I just need to know how wide that easement should be. Borup: Fifty feet. Meridian Planning & Zoning February 3, 2005 Page 45 of 58 Rohm: Fifty feet? Zaremba: Yes. Moe: Do you have a parcel number on that? Borup: Yes. Moe: Are you doing that? Rohm: Okay. Zaremba: And that's a plat issue, not a zoning issue. Rohm: I was just going to say the parcel to the south, but I can be more specific. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of AZ 04-035, including all staff comments for the hearing date February 3rd, dated January 31 st, 2005. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? carries. That motion MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rbhm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 04-045, including staff comments dated February -- or transmittal date of January 31 st, 2005, for the hearing date February 3rd, 2005, with the following changes: On page 12 we need to add an item 13 that says provide a 50 foot easement to the property to the south, with the parcel number S1203223400, for the future development of a stub street to that south property. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? carries as well. That motion MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 11: Public Hearing: AUP 04-018 Request for an Accessory Use Permit for a home occupation for a family day care for five of fewer children in a R-8 zone for Pamela Catt by Pamela Catt - 2899 North Anston Avenue: