Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 17, 2005 P&Z Minutes Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17.2005 Page 36 of 60 Moe: I move that we -- I move the Public Hearing on AZ 05-004 and PP 05-006 be continued to the regular scheduled Planning and Zoning meeting of April the 7th, 2005. Rohm: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Item 17: Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 05-006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 76.29 acres from RUT to R-4 zone for Zebulon Heights Subdivision No.2 by Traditions by Amyx II, LLP - south of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: PP 05-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 175 single-family residential building lots and 20 common lots on 72.85 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Zebulon Heights Subdivision No.2 by Traditions by Amyx II, LLP - south of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Public Hearing: CUP 05-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with reductions to lot frontage, increased block length and reduction in density to less than 3 dwelling units per acre in a proposed R-4 zone for Zebulon Heights Subdivision No.2 by Traditions by Amyx II, LLP - south of East McMillan Road and east of North Locust Grove Road: Zaremba: All right. I will open the Public Hearing for Items 16, 17, and 18 on our agenda. This is AZ 05-006, PP 05-008 and we have a correction to the file number on Number 18, it's actually CUP 05-019. These are all relating to Zebulon Heights Subdivision No.2. And we will begin with the staff report. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As you noted, this project had the wrong CUP file number. I apologize for that. There was another item on this agenda with the same file number. Again, this is CUP 05-019 is the new number. And it is located on the south side of McMillan Road. Eagle Road is in this location. Wainwright Drive does tie in with the subdivision at -- in this location. It's one half of a mile to the east of Locust Grove Road and approximately one half mile south of McMillan at the Wainwright entrance. It is currently zoned RUT in the county. Boise city abuts this site to the east and there are some large county parcels to the south that are zoned RUT that are within Meridian's area of impact. You can see the area of impact boundary between Boise and Meridian in this purple line here, so it kind of weaves in and out along the eastern boundary of a subdivision. I did want to point out a couple of the existing residential subdivisions. Heritage Subdivision are some large one Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17. 2005 Page 37 of 60 acre lots that front out onto Locust Grove and this is Settlement Bridge. The final plats haven't been recorded in Settlement Bridge and that is to the west. To the north, part of the annexation, but not part of the plat, are two ACHD storm drain lots located along the frontage of McMillan Road. And Austin Creek is across the street from that. The Ustick Baptist church continuing onto the east is in this -- on this parcel. And, then, Zebulon Phase One, which is a light office development in Boise city, actually fronts on Eagle Road with that Wainwright Drive access, just to orient you a little bit where we are at. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as medium density residential, as shown in yellow, and the site encompasses this area here. Their proposed gross density is 2.4 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting to go below our target density, so that's for your consideration this evening, is that 2.4 gross. The submitted plans -- there is the aerial. There are some existing structures on site that will all be removed. The proposed plat is here. There are 175 lots. They are proposing the R-4 zones, low density residential. There are some stub streets that are being extended into the project from Settlement Bridge here and one being proposed here and staff has recommended an additional stub street somewhere in location to a five acre parcel. In addition, they are proposing some -- a multi-use pathway that runs along the North Slough and this is page one. It's two pages. So,. bear with me a little bit. And that pathway will continue along the street section and go to a neighborhood park on the south end of the development and stubs with the street to an eight acre -- an eight acre parcel to the south, the Ketlinski parcel. Here are some elevations that the applicant provided, some pictures from what the anticipated homes are to look like. I did want to just point out the applicant did submit a response letter this afternoon. I would just like to touch on a couple of those issues that the applicant brought up and maybe suggest a couple of amendments to the staff report as submitted to you. The first one begins on page nine of the annexation and zoning. It's condition number three. It's the first bullet, second sentence. I have some language for that second sentence that should clear it up. I think everyone would be in agreement if we just removed the portion starting at -- from the second sentence to read: Further, the applicant agrees to provide the city with all -- and, then, you delete easements and -- and continue with legal descriptions for -- and delete any -- continue with portions of the multi-use pathway that are off site, deleting currently, and, then, leave the remainder of that. So, basically, removing the condition that they provide us with an easement, but anything that is off site they would need to provide the legal description for and construct that pathway from the western terminus of the project through -- to and through, basically, to the south of the project. Zaremba: I'm sorry, Craig. Tell me again where you were. Wasthat-- Hood: Okay. Page nine, number three. It's the first bullet. Zaremba: Oh, number three. I'm sorry. I thought you said number two. Okay. Hood: Second sentence. So, delete easement and in the third line and replace the with any and forward after that. And, then, continuing, multi-use pathways that are -- and, then, delete currently under ACHD. So, it would read: Further, applicant agrees to Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 38 of 60 provide the city of all legal descriptions for any portions of the multi-use pathway that are off site. Rohm: Got it. Hood: And continuing on, just a couple of other minor changes. On page 13, site- specific condition number three, the first and second bullet, just a comment. Maybe that first bullet could be -- allow a little bit of flexibility of the applicant for the construction of trees. Staff's idea was to have a consistent landscape buffer adjacent to McMillan Road. Settlement Bridge is constructing a 25-foot wide - 35-foot wide, excuse me, landscape strip -- landscape buffer there with trees and some nice landscaping. Staff's idea was that if you get some trees in there, at least right by the sidewalk, it will look continuous, you have a nice open space, the open space being the storm drain for ACHD back there and, you know, it will flow a little bit better. But if we amend the first bullet to just read: To remove in accordance with Meridian City Code 12-13-10-6 and replace it with if allowed by ACHD, that kind of gives the applicant some opportunity to plant some shrubs or some other type landscaping in there if they won't allow trees within that right of way. I think that may work. We would still encourage the applicant to plant trees in there, but it does give a little bit of flexibility and requiring trees in there may not be the best. I'll leave that up to you, just for your consideration. Two more changes, based on the applicant's response letter. Page 20 of the staff report, number two. Staff does not have a problem with adding the -- the exception to adding a bullet basically that allows Block 7 to exceed the maximum block length. If you look at the preliminary plat, Block 7 -- if it starts here and, technically, it would go to there. However, the street system really - being four lots deep I wouldn't consider as one block, 50 if they want to -- this is -- all the lots in this block are labeled Block 7, but the idea with the - the intent with part of our ordinance is that you don't have a straight, continuous street with no stubs or anything, so I think that if we add a bullet they are allowed Block 7 to be -- exceed the 1,000 foot and the applicant did request that in their application, I just didn't think it was necessary to include, because my interpretation wouldn't be that that is one block. So, if you want to add that as a bullet, that Block 7 may exceed that block length. And one final amendment is on the next site specific -- site specific condition number three on page 20, there was some discussion about the open space calculation. Staff has in the past typically not included the channel of a lateral as open space. The only point in the staff report -- they do meet the minimum requirement of five percent open space for a project. They are proposing eight percent quote, unquote, open space with approximately three percent of that being the channel, the top of bank to top of bank on the North Slough, 50 they still are at the minimum open space requirement. If you 50 choose, you know, could change that site specific condition number three or just clarify that they need to provide a minimum of five percent or if you want to require eight percent and have it be exclusive of any channel, you know, that would be about ten percent, that's up to you, I guess, but I believe the open space calculation is okay and the five percent works. I think it's appropriate in the development. If you have got a pathway adjacent to that, it does provide some visual amenity, so I don't know that it needs to be -- it may be clarified, but I think it's -- as written it works, too. A couple of final notes. The Ada County Highway District has Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17,2005 Page 39 of 60 allowed two streets to be constructed to what isn't their typical width being - their typical -- as proposed by the plat, their street section here, but it's a 36-foot street section. The ACHD is allowing them to construct these as 29-foot street sections, with parking on one side. Without getting into too much of the Meridian fire department's requirements, the applicant will have to meet whatever their face of curb or face of gutter requirement is for basically the emergency services and the highway district, for whatever street section that is, but the idea of allowing those is -- to kind of give you some more background information again, this is Zebulon Heights No.1, approved in Boise city. The cross-access across build-able lots here to the south -- and I'd like to go to the last slide here, the applicant actually provided this. The Ada County Highway District is talking about potentially, in the future, having a public street go through where that cross access has been provided and coming down to the Winston Moore parcel, which came through as Blue Marlin and, then, providing that service up to Wainwright, which would, eventually, have a signal here at the half mile on Eagle Road, so you get that commercial traffic that can flow through to Wainwright. It doesn't necessarily affect this project so much, but more of an FYI, for you, there may be a commercial street right adjacent to. The applicant has shown on another version of the plat a 20-foot wide landscape buffer, just to kind of buffer the residential uses from the street. Staff is supportive of that, but without any guarantee that the public street is going to go in there, I don't want to require that, so just an FYI. The traffic circulation has been thought about in this area and that's kind of what's going on there. The applicant will be required to construct turn lanes on McMillan Road, based on the traffic studies, both east and westbound on McMillan Road to get into their main entrance. They would have warranted for that, so there will be improvements to McMillan Road for turn lanes. And, finally, staff did receive quite a few letters from neighbors in the general vicinity about traffic on Eagle Road and the signal at Wainwright. The most recent version of the Eagle Road corridor study that I saw did show a signal at Wainwright. I don't believe it's planned for construction, but they are talking about a signal, it makes sense there. The city planning department thinks it makes sense there, but just so you know, we did receive a bunch of -- most of them came late this afternoon, so I'm not even sure you got them in your packet, but I'm just going on record for that. Zaremba: We receive them. We have got them. Hood: And staff is recommending approval. I think that's alii have and I'll stand for any questions. Zaremba: Question from the Commissioners? Borup: Which street section was it -- did you say a 29-foot -- I missed what area you were talking about. Zaremba: The two little cul-de-sacs. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 40 of 60 Hood: Commissioner Zaremba, the two cul-de-sacs -- the names are escaping me right now, but these two streets -- to get that 20 foot landscape buffer here, ACHD is allowing them to construct a 29 foot street section. Now, for the highway district. Borup: That's different than the plat we have, then? Hood: Correct. That didn't change. Borup: All right. I understand. Zaremba: Any other questions? Would the applicant care to hobble forward? McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens. I'm representing the applicant on this application. We did have a neighborhood meeting on this application prior to our submittal. Because this is a project of some size and anytime I have existing large lot residential adjoining us, it's always a good idea to have them -- provide an opportunity for the neighbors to come out, take a look at what we are proposing, and give us some input. In designing this particular project, we had the one-acre lots here to our west. We have five-acre lots here on our southern boundary. So, in laying this out, I took that into consideration. Obviously, we try to minimize the number of lots as much as possible adjoining these larger lots. The five is far more difficult, but the only way that I can do that is, typically, by utilizing the cul-de-sacs or the pie lot and on the western boundary we kind of did the same thing, we swung this street out, created a cul-de-sac here, and, then, made these lots considerably deeper. These are about 140 feet. So, all of these lots along this west boundary and along this southern boundary are extremely large. Some of them are as large as 31,000 square feet. The particular project we have here is very low density and, as Craig indicated, the Comprehensive Plan calls for this to be medium density, three to eight dwelling units. We did ask for a step down. Staff did agree with us, due to the fact that we have these larger estate lots around us, that it made sense that our density and our lots be -- our density be lower and our lots be larger. So, we are at about 2.4 dwelling units per acre. We had a little bit of a challenge up there at McMillan Road with Camas Creek there at Austin Creek Subdivision. Ada County Highway District purchased those two parcels and left that property a 50-foot kind of flag going out there for future access to McMillan and, then, after they did that, Austin Creek came in and nobody ever noticed that the 60 feet didn't line up with Austin Creek. So, when we -- when we met with the highway district on our pre-application conferences, we talked to them and they said they didn't feel that was a problem, they wanted definitely to align with Camas, and that we would be allowed to go in and do some redesign on those ponds and create this street and, then, do kind of a land exchange and it's already Ada County Highway District right of way, so it was not problematic. Your staff did ask that this be included in the annexation application, but it is not included in our preliminary plat. So, the Ada County Highway District property is not calculated in our density. We did meet with the Ada County Highway District staff about those ponds. They are not landscaped. We have heard comments over the past few years that they are not esthetically pleasing. The development services staff has indicated to us that they are open to granting us a license agreement to going in and try Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 41 0160 to make some improvements -- landscaping improvements where those ponds are. We will, obviously, be limited as far as what we can do by their drainage division, who will have the ultimate say on, you know, if we can put trees and how many and shrubs and so forth. The highway district has agreed to allow us to design sidewalks all along that stretch and, then, they would participate for the installation of a sidewalk on their frontage only. We would install it when our contractor comes in. That will make one continuous stretch of sidewalk there, versus having any gap, because with Settlement Bridge you will have all the way up to the Idaho Power property, the church has a sidewalk, and, then, there is obviously there at Madison Park you have got the Boise city regional park just northeast of us, so you're going to have a lot of pedestrian traffic going east over to that park. We have a natural feature here, the North Slough. We designed around that, incorporated it into our project. I only had one small portion here where we show a relocation. Everywhere else that this is the historical location of the North Slough. In your Comprehensive Plan it designates the North Slough as having a multi-use pathway, a ten foot, so we created a separate landscape lot here and, then, our large park area -- private park area here, we will swing that multi-use path through there, run it through a pedestrian micropath, there is a separate lot here and a separate landscape lot here. We will have -- the staff has asked us to create pedestrian friendly crossings every time it goes across any of the public roadways, either like with striping or stamped concrete. The pathway will, then, come over here and cross the slough. The pathway will have to be separate from Settler Irrigation District access to the slough. They made that decision with the Settlement Bridge project, so on the south side will be the 14 or 12-foot access road for maintenance by Settlers, on the north side will be the ten foot pathway and it will connect here. ACHD has indicated that they will allow us to construct this stretch of pathway, so we will make the connection to Settlement Bridge. We will have to get a license agreement. I have one little gap here. This is the Ustick Baptist Church. We have prepared a legal description as an exhibit. Luckily, one of the developers has an association with that church and he said that he would go speak with them and he thought that they would be open and favorable as far as allowing an easement on their property for a Meridian pathways and, then, that will complete that whole stretch. Wainwright here is a collector roadway. As Craig indicated, the same development team, we had a project approved in Boise we called Zebulon One, it's a light residential compatible office here. It's already been constructed. You may have seen it if you drive down Eagle Road. We will connect to that collector and extend that collector in and, then, transition to local streets. All our sidewalks will be detached with five foot of landscaping and, then, four-foot sidewalk. This area right here is about 3.36 acres. There will be like a little clubhouse, restrooms, changing rooms, lockers. They don't exactly know exactly how large the facility is going to be, but they are going to try to keep it, obviously, manageable, because the association will have to maintain it in perpetuity. They will also be building a swimming pool facility, a small little parking lot, and then, we have got kind of a little rotary with pathways going around and, then, a playground here and, then, a playground up here and this is about .35 acres. These lots, unlike a lot of the subdivisions that you have seen lately, are extremely large. A lot of them are twice the size of some of the other subdivisions that have been proposed. I have got to relocate. Sorry. I'd say probably the average size on a lot of these lots is 11, 12 and 13 thousand square feet. They are Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17,2005 Page 42 of 60 all really wide, 90s, a lot of 88s and 100s. We try to provide a variety. We anticipate the smallest homes on here to probably be around 2,500 square feet, approximately, so these will be larger, more expensive homes. We think that this will, obviously, benefit this area and provide a product out here that doesn't exist at this time. With Madison Park over here, that's a subdivision I did years ago, the density is around close to four dwelling units per acre. Austin Creek is close to four dwelling units per acre and, then, Settlement Bridge, as Craig indicated in the staff report, is 3.7 dwelling units per acre. So, we are providing a variety of housing. Our smallest lots are right here up against Madison Park, they are kind of a little separate area here. We toyed with how to treat this area. We thought about doing some town homes and, then, we decided we would just go detached single family. So, our smallest lots in here are about -- there is one that's 8,100 square feet. These neighbors here we are pleased at what we did, we are connecting to their stub street. They asked us to dump a lot right here, which I did, take a lot out. The two neighbors that I had spoke with, one on the phone, one at our neighborhood meeting, said if we took a lot out they would be satisfied. And that's what we did. I dealt with a couple of the neighbors to the south. Mr. Ketlinski is right here. One of his concerns is the Parkins North Lateral runs along that south boundary. I guess it serves this property. It also picks up drainage from their properties and, then, it turns and goes north over here and serves the subdivision here at -- called Heritage Subdivision. The ditch is leaking, they have had problems with it. His request was that we go in and work with them to pipe it. I think he -- he indicated that they do have some runoff that's going into it, so we will have to come up with a mechanism to collect any of their drainage and get that back into that pipe. So, I will be working with Settler's Irrigation District, because that's their water and according to their letter I think it's their facilities, but we will also work with the neighbors to the south to make sure that we take care of the ditch and provide water on these neighbors to the west. As far as fencing, we anticipate vinyl fencing is kind of what we talked about at the meeting. I offered up different varieties and types of fencing, because I always try to work with the neighbors and make sure that they are pleased with what fencing we are proposing. Vinyl seems to be real popular now, it wears well, and the adjoining neighborhood seems to like it. Along the North Slough we are looking at probably wrought iron. We want as much visibility as possible. If we are going to make that an amenity and have a pathway there, we want to make sure that it's a safe as possible. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: Commissioners, any questions? Newton-Huckabay: J have none. Borup: Not at this time. Zaremba: I have one small little spot. If you're referring to -- I believe you said it was the church property here. Do you know if their back property line is fenced? And the reason I ask that is is this going to be difficult over in this little corner where you need to make a pathway connection? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 43 of 60 McKay: I don't think they are fenced -- that's a pretty new facility. I think they are still kind of getting their development of their property -- they just got their building done here, I don't know, last year sometime. About a year ago. Zaremba: So, you're coming along at just the right time it sounds like. McKay: Just the right time. So, they will probably be glad to see some fencing that they don't have to purchase and we hope that they will be open to that pathway. We would think it would benefit them, because people from this neighborhood, obviously, then, walk to church, instead of driving, which would be good. Borup: And it looks like that pathway is probably within the easement -- the highway district easement anyway. Zaremba: The upper portion would be within the highway district. Was talking about this little corner over here. Borup: I'm sorry, I didn't mean the highway, I meant Settlers. I meant Settlers -- Zaremba: Oh, Settlers. Borup: -- easement. Yes. Zaremba: Well, that works. That would be good. McKay: So, we will still have to have permission from the church, even with the Settler's easement. So, I'm hoping to -- we are preparing a document that we hope they will sign just granting that to the City of Meridian and, then, we will construct it at our expense. Zaremba: I hope it's that easy. If that's, actually, incorporated city of Boise, does the city of Boise have to give up that four square inches or whatever we are talking about? McKay: No. It would just be an easement. It would only be a multi-use pathway easement. I don't think that they can overlap jurisdictional boundaries. City limits don't -- it doesn't matter, does it? I wouldn't think that would be problematic. Zaremba: Good. That helps. Commissioners? Rohm: I don't have any questions. It looks like a good project. McKay: Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. I know that's tough to juggle crutches and displays and microphones and -- you do it with a smile. We appreciate that. McKay: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 44 of 60 Zaremba: First on our list to speak is Ty Ketlinski. Ketlinski: Hello. I'm Ty Ketlinski. My address is 662 South Torino in Meridian and as you can probably assume from the last name, I'm speaking on behalf of my father and my mother, who own the south property, the triangular shape just to the south. It's noted -- yeah. That one right there. And Mr. Ed Bollinger is here also tonight with me and he owns the next -- the next parcel, the ten-acre parcel to the east of my father's. He couldn't make it tonight, he's down south vacationing, and so he sent me and he sent me on a subdivision that starts with a Z, so it's at the end of the calendar. At any rate, he sent a letter in and I'm sure all of you have gotten that -- Zaremba: Yes, we did. Very well worded letter. Ketlinski: Okay. And, in essence, you know, I don't want to repeat that letter verbatim, but I mean, in essence, there is two issues involved with the letter. The first has to do with transitional issues and the second has to do with the safety and a -- perhaps environmental concern. The first one, in terms of transition, his letter proposes several different options for those southern parcels there and one was to limit those particular parcels to one-story buildings and I know that the developer is against that notion. They characterize those lots as extremely large. I'm not - I think they are at the biggest a third of an acre, so I'm not sure they are too large. Newton-Huckabay: A big lot. Ketlinski: Times have changed, I guess. But, at any rate, given the size of the two parcels, my father's and Mr. Bollinger's, they would appreciate it if those could be limited to one story. The other transitional issues that they had suggested in the letter were putting up the fence and the developer suggested a vinyl fence. The one my father suggested was a concrete wall. And the second issue that I wanted to point out was the safety and the environmental concern. There is that ditch there -- the ditch there, there has been some leakage and if the developer is working -- is willing to work with him in some manner to get that covered, it would either be a pipe or tile or something like that, because I'm not sure -- I'm not sure what kind of problems would emerge in the future if that's not taken care of now, particularly if you are going to put several houses on the southern border. So, at any rate, he wanted a warm body here and Mr. Bollinger, like I said, echoes these concerns in the letter and so he sent me down. And the other issue that concerns me a little bit -- and this isn't in the letter -- is the Eagle Road issue. And I'm just a little bit -- not -- I'm concerned to a certain extent, being a resident of Meridian, regarding the impact on that road and I would be -- I would just be curious to hear the thoughts of the Commission on that. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Borup: I do have a question, Chairman. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 45 of 60 Zaremba: Commissioner Borup. Borup: You had mentioned the user's ditch. Do you know what side of the property line that is? Ketlinski: Yeah. It's on -- it's on my father's property side. Borup: Okay. Ketlinski: I believe -- or is it split down the middle? Yeah. It's split down the middle. Borup: The ditch is right on the property line you're saying? Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: We will have the applicant address your questions, but I would comment on - - since we also got quite a number of letters from other existing residents around in the area, they all referenced that there should be a signal at that intersection with Eagle. In attitude I'm sure the City of Meridian supports that idea. The jurisdiction for that is ATD. The City of Meridian doesn't make that decision and, in fact, that's actually in the city of Boise. So, I think you would certainly have support, but that is not part of our decision. Ketlinski: I realize that. I suppose -- I suppose in a way Eagle Road is kind of a -- I don't know, a neutral zone, so to speak. It's kind of in Meridian, it's kind of in Boise. Zaremba: Some of it is. You're absolutely right. Much of it is in Meridian. Ketlinski: You know -- and I'm not. I'm not sure. I don't have a solution. I was just wondering if anyone on the Commission had that -- Zaremba: We support the signal. We don't control it. Ketlinski: Okay. Zaremba: Next on the list is Dave Bivens, commissioner. Bivens: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is -- for the record, my name is Dave Bivens at 2354 Star Lane, Meridian, and I'm here not as a commissioner, but as a neighbor and resident in the area and we live just over the west fence of this -- of this division. I guess we had met Mrs. McKay here previously and discussed the problem that we had with the Settler ditch that runs along that property. You mentioned it along the south side. And, then, runs back to the north, goes clear up to the north and, then, back down to the west again. The gophers have really a joy ventilating that ditch and not only that, I think it definitely, in my estimation, needs to be piped for safety reasons for the little children, because the ditch is large enough that a child -- a small child -- I know if my great grandchildren got in there they couldn't get out. So, I think they pretty well agreed to do that. We talked about the fence and there needs to be some kind of a fence barrier. We already have on our property -- we do have a chain link fence, I think Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 46 of 60 a five, six-foot chain link fence all the way around our property and that was there when we purchased it 22 years ago. But I think we talked about that. The only other item -- and I don't know whether others wrote in relative to the type of structure -- hopefully, it could be one story structures along that -- the east side of that development there -- it would, actually, be the west side of their development, but on the west east side of the Heritage Subdivision. But we have lived there and enjoyed the open area out there for - - and the gophers, of course, and other things that came along, for nearly 22 years this coming July. So, I just wanted to be here and I appreciate the opportunity to listen to the discussions and see the operation. I haven't been here -- I used to sit on the other side of the desk -- the other side of the podium and I did excuse myself from voting when this particular subdivision came before us, because I had already visited with the developer and made some comments, so I felt it was only proper that I excuse myself from voting, so I am -- my skirt's clean in that respect. So, I will put back on my commissioner hat for just a second and comment about the 29-foot streets. And I know there was frowning going on when we talk about 29-foot streets, but in the Boise area we -- especially up in the heights, up towards Bogus Basin Road and up in there, some of those roads, because of the conditions, the area, and what have you, we have allowed even down to 28-foot streets. It helps to deter speed and kind of discourage a little traffic and what have you. I know it isn't always the best, but sometimes it works and we haven't heard any -- in other words, we approved them and they haven't heard anything back from them. So, hopefully, that's good news. So, that's all that I had and appreciate the chance to be before you and I have enjoyed the evening, listening, kind of nice to sit back and relax, not have to make any decision. So, if you have any questions, why I would be more than pleased to -- Zaremba: Commissioners, questions? Newton-Huckabay: I have nothing. Bevins: Okay. Keith lives in my subdivision, so -- all right. thank you very much. Zaremba: Thank you, sir. Ed Bollinger. Okay. He said it's already covered. Todd Amyx. He has nothing to add. Okay. Mr. Bollinger was marked as neutral and Mr. Amyx is marked as for. And in that case we are ready for the applicant to return. McKay: Becky McKay. On the Eagle Road issue, one thing to keep in mind, this is low density, it's 175 lots. We anticipate approximately five phases. That's what we have delineated on our preliminary plat. We are asking, you know, for market flexibility as far as our phase lines are concerned. We will be starting here on McMillan Road and working our way back this way. So, this particular area here I think is in phrase four. I was the planner on Cameron Park and that was one of the first collectors that I ever laid out in a subdivision, especially one that was pretty close to being a continuous collector, because it did go deep into the center and, then, fed out a lot of those subdivisions that came about after Cameron Park, such as Heather Meadows, out to that half mile. ITD dictated that we place Wainwright at that half mile, so that at some point in time it did have the possibility of being signalized. What we are being told by Washington Group Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page470f60 is that they are studying that Eagle Road corridor. The consultant has came up with an idea that they will install a median along Eagle Road and this was -- J guess this is the preferred way to handle the volumes that are taking place on Eagle Road and what's going to happen in the future. If they put a median down Eagle Road, there will be no left-hand turning movements. Therefore, that will improve its carrying capacity. But in doing so they will have to install signals at these half miles and create u-turns for -- so you can go back -- you know, if you're coming from the other direction and get back to your subdivision. I guess it's done in other communities. They claim that it just takes some getting used to and we are going to have to, you know, step up and realize that we can't have all these left-hand turning movements on these five lane state highways and maintain 55 miles per hour. And if it's going to carry high volumes at 55, well, they are going to have to take some drastic actions like that. As far as the installation of that light, it meets the warrant, but ITD, obviously, has not budgeted for it and according to our traffic engineer, he said they are not going to put it in until they have political pressure from the public, the municipalities, to install that, just like what you saw happen in Eagle down there at Island Woods. If you're the mayor and you live in Island Woods, then, you can get a light. So, you know, it's political pressure. How he explained it to me is for every one person on Wainwright that the light would accommodate, they were inconveniencing 20 people that are going north-south on Eagle Road. When they -- I guess they factor in the delay time of those 20 people and what they could be making at the average wage in the valley and, then, they determine -- I guess they put a value on what it costs people to be delayed to allow Wainwright people to get out onto Eagle Road and make left-hand turns and -- I mean a 20 to one ratio, obviously, Wainwright loses every time. So, if it's going to be a political issue. The warrants are there, but neither we, nor ACHD, nor the city can force -- you know, can get ITD to do it without putting pressure on them. They are not going to do it easily. At least that's how it was explained to me by the traffic engineer. On the piping of the ditch, I will work with the neighbors to the south and Settlers Irrigation District in the sizing and locating of that pipe. I'll have to work with Commissioner Bivens, I hope that he will be my contact there, since he's lived there for so many years, as far as piping the ditch that comes up and serves them. Any time we can put them in pipe it's better off for all the neighborhood and from what I have been told by all the surrounding neighbors, there are problems. I mean the ditches are leaking, they are washing out, and they have been a headache for a long time and so this is an opportunity for us to go in and take care of that problem for them. The fencing. The vinyl fencing is very standard in the subdivisions. It looks good. It wears well. It's six feet. It is sight obscuring. I don't believe that a concrete wall is what people want. I mean people don't want to be walled in. This isn't a Wal-Mart or something like that that is not compatible with the residential to the south. We are residential also and we have taken great effort to try to minimize the number of lots that we place next to those larger lots and come up with a design and a density that would be a good transition as recommended in your Comprehensive Plan. As far as the single story issue, I have always been of the opinion that it is your inherit right to build a single story or a two story. There is -- you know, to restrict that I just -- I always think it's wrong and I guess the question I ask -- when Settlement Bridge came in, they got a whole bunch of 8,000 square foot lots and less all along the north boundary of Heritage Subdivision, were they all restricted to single story? I don't think Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17,2005 Page 48 of 60 so. .1 really really doubt it. And I think, you know, the same should hold true for us. We have made greater effort - when I look at their design here, they have got a bunch of lots -- they have created a lot more neighbors backing up to these people's backyards than we have. They didn't use cul-de-sacs and pie size lots to transition like we did. I think we have gone the extra mile. Also, I have looked at the locations of the homes along this corridor here and here and, then, when you factor in that the homes set back approximately 20 to 30 feet from the edge of right of way, the homes are approximately 50 feet in depth, when I measure the distance from this home to that home, it's between 175 and in excess of 200 feet, depending on, you know, which house you're measuring them, because they are staggered in here. So, I guess we are not like 15 feet from their boundary. I have created lots that are 140 feet deep, I think this lot line here is like 225. So, you know, we have really tried to make sure that it's as open as possible and that those homes will set as far as back as possible to preserve their views as much as we can. But I just -- I always disagree with that one story restriction. If we start doing -- I mean it just -- things like that snowball and pretty soon, you know, I guess we will all be living in one story houses, because you can' build two story anymore. Do you have any questions? Zaremba: I think we have responded to that and made that requirement when there was a demonstrated security issue. Do you know -- and I'm just using the canal along the property line as a reference - is the property fairly level on. both sides? Are they equivalent heights? McKay: Oh, yeah. I think it's -- I don't think there is discrepancies in elevations of property. It's all pretty flat. Zaremba: So, your property isn't ten feet higher than the other property? McKay: Not to my knowledge. It's all pretty much the same. Zaremba: All pretty level? McKay: I mean those ditches are serving -- Zaremba: The footings of the houses would be on the same level? McKay: Yeah. We don't -- there is no flood plane or anything that would require that we come in and build the property up or anything, no, sir. Zaremba: Would there be any interest in requiring a larger backyard setback, so that the houses are definitely built near the front of the property? I'm trading this off, as opposed to one story. McKay: They are pretty big lots. I mean -- are you opposed to that? Are you opposed to larger setbacks on the rear lot lines? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 49 of 60 Zaremba: And I realize the economics of it. Most people don't want to build a long driveway, it's expensive, so they probably will build forward on the lot anyhow, but -- McKay: And that's typically what we see. Zaremba: Okay. restriction? So, you don't want either a one-story restriction or a setback McKay: I don't -- I don't see them being 15 feet from it. The lots are too deep. Zaremba: Yeah. I can see that as well. Commissioners? Moe: Are you anticipating all those lots to have two story homes there? McKay: I'd say there is -- you know, chances are there may be some single levels in there and there may be some two stories in there. You know, I think that the market kind of dictates it. The builder team that they -- that they have, they have -- and you can see the pictures that we submitted, they build two stories, they build single story. So, you know, a 50-50 chance, I guess. Heck, I don't know. I don't know what the ratio is for a single story or a two-story ratio. Rohm: I think, typically, when we tried to restrict to single story is where the homes are going to be right on the property line, they will be looking right down into their backyard and -- or into their homes and I don't believe that that's the case in this particular subdivision. It's -- they are not building right on top of each other. McKay: That's correct, sir. And we have got an aerial photo on the back of that that demonstrates the distance. Zaremba: I have to apologize. I have just looked through the sign-up sheet and realized that there was somebody signed up for Item 18 that wasn't on the other lists and I did not call that person. Can I interrupt you to - McKay: Yes, sir. Zaremba: -- see if Mr. Fred Roam is here. He is not here. So, my faux pas goes unnoticed. He was marked as neutral on the sheet. I'm sorry. Okay. Proceed. McKay: Yeah. Here is -- ours is overlaid on top of it. Thank you. There is an aerial photo, if you would like to take a closer look. It is to scale. It's one inch equals 100 feet, so -- there we go. Here is a home right here. That's one hundred feet to there. And, then, we have got 140 feet to this right of way. Here is a home. There is 85 feet from the -- and I'm going from the rear line of that home to the boundary. And this is 140. Mr. Ketlinski's house is here. It's 140 feet from the closest point of his home to the boundary here. And, then, these, I think, are 140 feet. And like this house here is substantially further. So, one inch equals 100 feet. So, when you come back 20 feet, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 50 of 60 calculate a 50 foot pad area, you're getting, you know, a separation that's, like I said, between 175 and 200 feet in separation from home to home. Rohm: That was the point that I was making. Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Zaremba: I think most items have been addressed. I don't remember what the final comment was on making one of the southern cul-de-sacs into a stub street. McKay: What, sir? Zaremba: There was a suggestion from staff that one of the southern cul-de-sacs be made into a stub street. McKay: Yes, sir. We were in agreement with that. Zaremba: I don't remember what that discussion ended up. McKay: Yeah, we were in agreement with that. The Ada County Highway District did not ask for an additional stub to the south, but staff did. And that kind of a road -- we have this stub street here that's in alignment with a future stub at Champion Park Subdivision here. We got this connection to Settlement Bridge. This connection to Madison Park. And, then, what staff talked about here, where Ada County Highway District -- we have a 48 foot lot that we created as a buffer landscape lot for the -- between the office use and the residential and ACHD believes they would like to purchase that lot, so that they can make a commercial connection to this commercial collector and get out to a light when Winston's Moore's property develops. So, it was staff's determination that since that would be more of a commercial roadway, that it made the most sense to put another residential stub here in the event this five acre property were to redevelop in the future. And we are not opposed. We will just drop the cul-de-sac down. Zaremba: You're okay with that? McKay: We are okay with that. So, I think staff and the applicant are pretty much in agreement. The only thing that we are concerned about is making sure that we didn't have a requirement placed on us to landscape those ponds in a specific fashion that we can't get ACHD to agree to. Rohm: I guess my question, then, would be if that will not be a cul-de-sac any longer and be a through -- or a stub street, can you, then, make it the 30 -- what is it, 33 foot -- what's the standard roadway? McKay: Thirty-six. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17. 2005 Page 51 of 60 Rohm: Thirty-six? As opposed to a reduced roadway? McKay: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Rohm, what we did -- if you could put that back up. There we go. We submitted it with a 50-foot right of way here and here and 36 back to back. When Ada County Highway District brought this issue up here in this phase one that's already built and platted, we decided that we would need to create some -- a new buffer. If this becomes a commercial roadway, I need a 20-foot landscape buffer between these residential lots and that ACHD right of way there. Right now I have a 48-foot buffer that they want to buy. It's already landscaped and done, but they are saying they want to buy that for a future commercial street connection to the south, to Winston Moore's property and so we -- if we took 20 feet out of here, then, we reduce these to 42-foot right of ways and that's where we got the 20 feet. So, that's how that came about. Is that bothering you? Rohm: Well-- McKay: Oh, you're saying if it's -- Rohm: If it's a through street -- McKay: I see what you're saying. Rohm: Yeah. If it's a through street. McKay: You're saying if we are going to get some traffic here, then, maybe we should go with 50-foot, 36. Rohm: Bingo. McKay: You're correct. Rohm: Yeah. McKay: Good point. That will cause a problem. Hood: Mr. Chair. Commissioners, we did actually talk with Christy Richardson about that very question and I have an e-mail from her stating that the traffic volume anticipated on that stub street will not exceed their threshold for a 42-foot right of way, so they will still allow you to do 29, again, provided that Meridian fire also signs off on that street section for parking on one side. So, their development services is okay with the extension of the stub street at a 29 foot street section. Rohm: That was my point. Thank you. Zaremba: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17,2005 Page 52 of 60 Moe: I do have a -- Zaremba: Commissioner Moe. Moe: -- question. Probably more for staff. I just want to make sure in regards to the tiling of the ditches that is taken care of, then, on page 14 of the -- of item four. We will take care of that? Hood: That is correct. And also on the applicant's submitted preliminary plat you notice the Parkins Lateral, a user's ditch and, then, it says to be piped. So, they are proposing to do that on their plat, in addition to this site specific standard requirement that requires all irrigation laterals to be tiled and piped, so -- Moe: Just wanted that on the record. Thank you. Borup: Mr. Chairman, we have talked about the -- I guess it would become a through street. I wasn't clear on what properties that was going to have access to. It looks like a ACHD future street would go to Winston Moore's property and cut through those two parcels, I'm assuming. I assume those purple lines are a proposed conceptual layout? Hood: That's my artistic take on streets. The dashed lines -- the black was provided by the applicant. They are approximate locations. There are some constraints. A private lane does bisect right here and there is some crossing of that private lane. The other idea is to get the commercial mixed use here at Winston Moore's up to the signalized intersection. It may weave a little bit through there, but that's the general alignment of that street. These other pink are the residential portions. This mayor may not tie with that commercial aspect -- or commercial street, but it could potentially provide that connectivity as well, so -- all very conceptual, though. Borup: Okay. Right. I understand. Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: The hearing is still open. Commissioner Bivens back again. Bivins: Dave Bivens. Craig, could you put back up that -- the map of the way it currently is? Yeah. The reason this not to -- I think you asked -- Mr. Chairman, you asked that the elevation of these properties -- this land in here versus the land that's on this side -- you remember that this lateral runs right down here and, then, back over this way. It is on grade. But the interesting thing -- and I don't know how it ever happened -- but the drainage from the irrigation system that still occurs here actually drains down from the east to the west and, then, down to the south and it's piped down to that way. It's kind of a strange arrangement. But the lateral at this point in this corner here is quite high and this location in here is a dramatic difference in elevation. So, they have graded that -- leveled that land in there, so -- Zaremba: Let me see if I understand it. The canal itself is high, but the properties on both sides of the canal are fairly equal? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17. 2005 Page 53 of 60 Bevins: The canal itself is high and this part through here -- right in through here is concreted. It's a concrete ditch. And, then, it's open -- just dirt ditch from here on out. But, like I say, this here -- the land on this side is much higher, because of that draining to the -- it's going against the grain, I guess you would say, from the way the water runs and I was told at one time that that was changed and the water at one time came down -- and I'm probably -- this is maybe irrelevant. The water came down this line right here and, then, it went this way to service this property. So, they changed that whole thing and releveled that field, so that the water drains from about in this area here, down here, down -- goes down that ditch. So, the elevation that -- the net result was -- in answer to your question, the elevation on the west side of the canal is actually higher than it is on the east side. So, it does give a better site distance. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, any thoughts? questions? Discussion? Close the Public Hearing? Further Rohm: I don't have any additional questions. Mr. Chairman, I move we close the -- Hood: Mr. Chair, excuse me. You may want to just allow the applicant to have the last word, even though it wasn't really a question, she's just -- Zaremba: The applicant is satisfied with it. That was a contribution, not a question. And it, actually, was answering a question that I asked, so appreciate that. Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Items 16, 17 and 18. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second to close the three public hearings. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Do we need any further discussion or clarification from staff of items in the report that should be modified? We had some given to us previously. Newton-Huckabay: Some modifications? Zaremba: Uh-huh. Or are you ready? Rohm: I think I'm going to make a stab at the first one anyway. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 54 of 60 Newton-Huckabay: I have some questions first. Zaremba: Commissioner Newton-Huckabay. Newton-Huckabay: This Eagle Road traffic issue with the medians and that type of thing, what's the time horizon on getting that to a resolution? Does anybody know? I mean we see the miscellaneous reports and that type of thing, but -- Rohm: My guess is just as the -- they address it at such time as political pressure is significant. Newton-Huckabay: I guess my concern is -- I know that we don't decide that. I mean we have no impact on that, that we are not the authority there, but we continually recommend developments a on Eagle Road and -- but everybody at the same time agrees that there is a huge problem on Eagle Road and -- Borup: Usually it's when it gets bad enough that people can't take it anymore, then, they do something. So, the way to speed that up is to have more development. Rohm: Yeah. Make it worse. Zaremba: Unfortunately -- and I think one of the letters that was written to us or e-mails, I'm not sure how the form came in, pointed out that the signal at Island Woods or Two Islands or Two Rivers or whatever it is up there, happened because there were traffic fatalities and, you know, you don't want to have to wait that long to have it happen, but, unfortunately, sometimes that's what pushes the responsible authority over. Rohm: Well -- and I also think that -- Newton-Huckabay: Director Canning, do you have anything more enlightening -- Zaremba: I think Director Canning has something to add. Canning: I just wanted to say that the Eagle Road corridor study I don't believe has actually been adopted yet, so I think that that's just finishing up. And, then, I know that the next step was, then, to allocate funds. If the Garvee bonding goes -- proposal goes through, the govemor will probably -- it's not one of the ones he specifically identified, but I would imagine it's one of the ones that ITD is probably interested in. So, that's the next step in the whole process, to begin funding parts of that project as identified in the corridor study. Borup: And in this case Eagle Road will start with the median is what they would be doing on Eagle Road? And some signal lights? Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17, 2005 Page 55 of 60 Canning: I seem to recall - I think they were going to do it kind of in chunks, rather than do all the lights and, then, all the medians. I think they were going to just go in segments as they went down the road. Borup: Makes sense. Canning: You know what would be a great thing is that Steve, I believe, is coming to talk to you on the - Zaremba: Our second meeting in April. Canning: In April. And he could probably, if you asked him, give you an update on what's going on with the Eagle Road corridor study. That would be the best thing to do. Zaremba: Great. Canning: If I remember I will let him know. If one of you remembers, that would be helpful, too. Try and leave him a note. Newton-Huckabay: That's the only thing that bothers me all the time is, you know, what is the resolution to that very real problem. Or are we just going to continue to develop around that problem? Rohm: Well, I think that a portion of the answer to that that as developments occur you're adjacent mile post roads are going to develop as Eagle Road has and Locust Grove and other roads will continue to expand and lessen some of that burden off of Eagle Road, as they are widened and fully developed. And in the meantime you just-- Zaremba: Much of the -- how shall I put this? . We know that ITD and ACHD are responsible for actually building the roads, but they are, actually, in a position of having to wait until Compass forecasts that that road improvement is necessary and justifiable. Compass constantly updates their forecast and their need based on how much development happens. I mean their forecasting system seems to under forecast, but they revise it every time a new subdivision starts building and I think it's been said before, road widenings and signals and even fire stations happen because enough development happens to force them into the -- onto the schedule for the improvement plan and, you know, if we were to deny this development, that signal probably will never happen. Newton-Huckabay: Oh, I'm not going to -- I'm not saying I want to deny this development, but -- Zaremba: Yeah. I knew we weren't talking about that extreme, but I'm just making that example. Meridian Pianning & Zoning March 17. 2005 Page 56 of 60 Newton-Huckabay: I mean it's not rocket science that something needs to happen on Eagle Road and whether -- you know, that -- you know, somebody needs to be jumping up and down and throwing a fit that we need to fix the problem on Eagle Road. And I don't know how that gets done, because it's not -- you know, the ACHD report says, you know, who is going to fund the -- who is going to fund the light -- Zaremba: Well, I may have asked this question before. When we get this many e-mails and letters from people who address that subject, does anybody ever respond to them and say would you, please, forward your request onto ITD? Borup: That's what I was just going to say. That would be useful to have -- but have them do the same to ITD and that's where it needs to go. They are all from Cameron Park. Zaremba: Can we respond to some of them, say thank you for your interest, please -- Hood: Mr. Chair? Zaremba: -- who would make that response? Hood: We do have a response card. It's pretty generic. It says thank you for your concern. Your concerns were noted at the hearing and we could even add, probably, a P.S. to the end of that generic card that we have generated, you know, please forward this on to ITD District Three and let them know that you have concerns about this and they get a mass e-mailing -- I don't know that it will go anywhere, but we could certainly do that. Newton-Huckabay: I think it's a great idea. Zaremba: I would like to respond to the people -- suggest to them that they take that action. If that's possible. Does that help us resolve most issues? Commissioner Rohm, you look like -- Rohm: I have run out of steam now. Borup: He was already to go. Rohm: I was ready to go 15 minutes ago. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward on to City Council recommending approval of AZ 05- 006, including the staff report for hearing date March 17th, 2005, received on March 14th, 2005, with the following changes: On page nine, paragraph three, bullet one, the second sentence should read: Further, the applicant agrees to provide the city with all legal descriptions for any portions of the multi-use pathway that are off site, quote, Meridian Planning & Zoning March 17,2005 Page 57 of 60 unquote, under ACHD ownership and church ownership, end quote, prior to final plat signature. End of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rohm: Did we have anything with the preliminary plat? Moe: Yes. On page 13. Rohm: Got it. Got it. Mr. Chairman? Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm. Rohm: I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 05-008, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 17th, 2005, and received March 14th, 2005, with the following changes: On page 13, under site specific conditions, preliminary plat, item three, bullet one, to read: If allowed by ACHD, install one tree for every 35 feet -- through the balance of that first sentence. And I have not made any other changes, so end of motion. Moe: Second. Zaremba: We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Anyopposed? Okay. That motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Zaremba: Commissioner Rohm, you're on a roll. Rohm: Mr. Chairman, I move that we forward onto City Council recommending approval of CUP 05-019, to include all staff comments for the hearing date March 17th, 2005, and received March 14th, 2005, with no changes. Moe: Page 20. Rohm: Oh, that's why we have you, Dave. Page 20. Okay. Oh. Page 20, item two, add a second bullet that says Block 7 is allowed to exceed the block length due to design configuration of the existing street structure. Borup: Do you want to add the word thousand in there? ~ ----